Van ptete 
PP taty 


vn 
Pay) 


Cotas 
Di Sean ty 


ren 


aseng ity 


*atiay tees Pint 
Seber tabs 1 


; 1 
WES pets ay tes 


aN oth ede yeas y 


tay, 
MAMSa TG IT Hey 
ae 
abit 
raster tags 


rey, 
ay 


Lees 
Se Nite 


vier 
LEARNT PLY) 
‘ sonete eed 
AMG t, : 
HE eet eed 
Caytad 


when ey tere t gee 


Parganas 
weary 
Pan RiP 
tae 
A 


' 
ek eta) 





mcs yi 
yey 


SIM een ae 


q preraryes 
Perera 


wild ervey. 


“nade yee 
been tated 


Pate tay 


feats 


we 
Py tad pty 
a8 


Werbowy 
sh otee gen 
EM iat ageory® 


‘ ins 


t ung 
eesti aeg ternal 


larson, 
sea 
eters 


Cia hah 
14 f8AdE OME IG Ho rye 
Myte staat tatadary 
Pitas ye, 


Shey MOF eta, 
aTyregeady aes 
tpt as; 


Pres 
een as 
ware 


TE Ligh 


tpg ey 
ny N04 thee 
, 


ynae 
rh aey 4 
eB” nda tgtacy 

wean 

ror 
os 
WPriaas 
sate 
tyays 


fests, pa, 
2 59 4H y cay, 
PPG Orsay yer yee 
cM rer Try 
ed V Ge. Hy Ie sy 
yi? Care 


a 
’ 


a 
Ata rsh ot 
0a tg Rely oan te 
is ay 


H PREM EELS al 
fire 


+097 ie 


ean Pn 
iy 


i ytsiay 
UNE ye gl oe ate 
Ns t@ 9) Mn ya a settzegeye? 


4» 





= 





the Theologicay 
ys a ae 


PRINCETON, N. J. 











Divisione. hlaheD 
Section, A Bie’ re coil 


AVEIRO EP ee ease eae | | 











SEP 22 2006 


4 
Heo ogient sew 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 


https://archive.org/details/epistletoromansi00turn 





nate, i a ; 
a/v ean ee ) 
a en 


ae 


7 


Wir 






AMAA Y. 





<a : wa 


; ; af 
= “MA 4124 tan Ty = ney at 
« a. iy x 


x] 





THE 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 


GREEK AND ENGLISH, 


WITH AN ANALYSIS AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY. 


BY 


SAMUEL H."TURNER, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AND OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE 


AND LITERATURE IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK, AND 
ane NCeIOD 


AUTHOR OF COMMENTARY ON THE HEBREWS. 
Pp ed < 2006 


A gh 
FEL oGICA, st 4 





REVISED AND CORRECTED. 


NEW, YORE: 


ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY. 
_ 1859. 


ae 
* 
‘ 


aoe a 
, » 2 ob oo ft Rete ; 
Ro. Wee | gh he 
pai seore Ss ” 
“iin rite ee ate 
aetna 


rar Tho a oy 














» wlye 












) wp 


+ 





' rT) et ? 7 ' MATAR AM AA iT % 





te BUD Lets 2 ' 
ho 







. a ot €* Ja A Dig aS RTT ee i 

t ; > : << ? 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the vear 1858, a 
: By Sawver H. Tunyer, che an 
; In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. 


} = 
7 : P wl 
; ae 
" ; "% a 
SO VAAY WO TH foo. a 
ye? | ow ; ie a) 
* MS oS 132 a 


= 
-——8 
shy 
bend 
i] 
C2 
2 
~- 
ceed 
‘ 
a 





TO THE MEMORY OF 


The Right Rev. William Cehite, B.A. 


LATE BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND PRESIDENT 
OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY; 


TO WHOSE EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE, 
SOUND AND DISCRIMINATING 
JUDGMENT, 
AND WISE COUNSELS, 
OUR CHURCH IN THIS COUNTRY 
OWES A DEBT OF GRATITUDE WHICH CAN 
NEVER BE REPAID; WHOSE UNAFFECTED PIETY, BENEVOLENCE 
AND URBANITY SECURED THE PROFOUND RESPECT OF ALL GOOD MEN} 
WHOSE DEVOTION TO THE CAUSE OF OUR ZION WAS SHOWN BY 
A LONG AND CONSTANT ATTENTION TO HER UNITY AND 
PROSPERITY; WHO, IN DRAWING UP A COURSE OF 
THEOLOGICAL READING FOR STUDENTS OF 
DIVINITY, PLACED THE SACRED SCRIP- 
YURES IN THE MOST PROMINENT 
POSITION, AS THE ONLY 
SOLID FOUNDATION 
OF DIVINE 
TRUTH : 
TO THAT 
CLARUM ET VENERABILE NOMEN, 
WHICH MUST EVER LIVE IN THE 
GRATEFUL MEMORY OF 
THE INDEBTED 
AUTHOR ; 
THE FOLLOWING PAGES, 
AS A WELL MEANT ENDEAVOUR 
TO ELUCIDATE A PORTION OF GOD’S MOST 
HOLY WORD, ARE RESPECTFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED. 


THEOLOGIOAL SEMINARY, 
August 1, 1853, 


vor ones ah "i 






a fan 


a 
id singe enveenad-ye ‘vgs are He Sh kh 
Sy SOedar teen het eteeeeiaee aioe peta oow al cee 
tere nv ene ae haters actors ade, anlunes* ert 
a oo bs ¥rom +4 we we Yi are ? digk OP viurevag, ela 4° 
: eee 
” a] ane epee se oF ere obivens ‘> ath Re, fg +9 7 
) f - ° - ¢ i ‘ o we is 
ve ‘us WF nico ke ¢ aad Ke OH {LEME 6 ete 
ie | : & Ae wees En, ‘h0lae” Lentnnsione ie 
. . qa ge ai aay 

| As Hen Cagney ‘Feehan 
k ss ae te Rg al \ oo 














. oe ‘ iM 
7 IVR V0 S siete eae ; 2m he : 
ami * ee | A *», 
Aud a ay (¢ 4 ' ye ert 4 ee p ° a ? seed il 
‘ t pa 
7 ack 4 ’ 
y: cyrnirs 
( ) 
Jn - Val 
» " 2 5 : - 
7 ts ‘ vir}* Seer ww ae Ts = S » bs co uae lr The eine sse8 s 
“i : « VEAL GEE (24 Teas) ee : ye Oe? 
J 
ce? < CAM CALC 2 “4 ; 
: Qivnin Yih = o 
P : “= 
any OF * yr. 
‘ : ‘ . iu on = var 
Fos othe a ashame) von & > . a+ ae | re an 
' (0° 07 ie 
' iy ; : P = / "7 4% 4 : 
UPSTASUPA TPES CIR A TK - 
* ig ) s*h2-4 > af ‘ Fy 
ni SPADA Cows hy i aren Ce a 
a4 7 z cy 
A’ : PASTURE 
. ) wh ‘ : 4 Laud : x 
2 ore! 2h cetone on 
smelt 5 are, . a 
f . 
5 ‘ 
. 
: i Wis Dg te Ae wy a oo OA ee 
a] | 
! 
4 ‘ 
; ; in 
i 
me ae 
‘ wk) i W 
a Al ies r 


C.O NRE WS. 


ees 
PRUROUUCTION, 214, .T KOLEDM AY an se: 
SOC LEST SIS. 3) MNOS enn te RRC ERE SN ie a cat ieee Raa 


SECTION I, 
Chap. I. 1-15. 
INTRODUCTION, . ° . : : d - ; : ° ° F 


SEC TIONAIE. 
Chap. I. 16-32. 
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE PORTION OF THE EPISTLE 
STATED, WITH A VIEW OF THE MORAL CONDITION OF THE HEATHEN 
WORLD, Q P - A 2 . : “ - . 


SECTION III. 


Chap. II. 
THE INCONSISTENCY OF JEWS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF GENTILES, AND 
THEIR FOLLY IN TRUSTING TO. EXTERNAL PRIVILEGES, . ° ° . 


SECTION IV. 
Chap. III. 
JEWISH OBJECTIONS MET AND SINFULNESS PROVED. GENERAL CONCLUSION 
DRAWN, . : ‘ . 


SHGTLION V,. 
Chap. IY. 


JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVED AND APPLIED BY THE INSTANCE OF 
ABRAHAM, . Phe : 


SECTION VI. 
Chap. V. 1-11. 
THE HAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF A STATE OF JUSTIFICATION, 


19 


24 


30 


43 


59 


71 


‘3 ; > ; 





PHO LON: ae. 
Chaps. XIL-XYVI. 
THE PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE, . . . . . . 


“viii CONTENTS. © 
SECTION Vii. 
Chap. V. 12-21. pags 

COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF ADAM’S FALL WITH THOSE OF CHRIST'S 
REDEMPTION, . ‘ : ; : 5 eM ° . - 

SECTION VIII. 
Chap. VIL 

THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND SALVATION BY DIVINE 
FAVOUR, AFFORD NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN, BUT RATHER PRESENT 
THE STRONGEST MOTIVES TO HOLINESS, : . E . - on tee. 

SECTION IX. 
Chap. VII.-VIIL 17. 

THE LAW CAN NEITHER JUSTIFY NOR SANCTIFY. IT IS THE GOSPEL WHICH 
ALONE CAN MEET, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE WANTS OF MAN’S WEAK 
AND SINFUL CONDITION, ‘ : * 4 “ ° ° ° - 105 

SECTION X. 
Chap. VIII. 18-89. 

THE TRIALS OF LIFE AND THE BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL BOTH HERE AND 
HEREAFTER COMPARED. GOD'S PURPOSE TO CONFER ALL THESE BLESSINGS 
ON HIS REDEEMED. CONSEQUENT EXULTATION AND TRIUMPH, F - 184 

Ve O 0 LON « Kd, 
Chaps. IX. X. XI. 

UNBELIEVING JEWS ARE REJECTED AND BELIEVING GENTILES ADMITTED IN 
THEIR PLACE, YET THE REJECTION OF THE JEWISH NATION IS NOT 
ABSOLUTELY FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE. ON THEIR REPENTANCE AND 
FAITH THEY SHALL BE RESTORED, 5 = : : A “ . 158 


212 


INTRODUCTION. 





Sr. Paut, a descendant of respectable Hebrew ancestry, (Phil. 
ii. 5,) was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, a city celebrated for its 
cultivation of literature and science, in which respect it has been 
placed on a level with Athens and Alexandria. If, in this position, 
he had not become thoroughly embued with Greek learning, he 
must, nevertheless, have obtained a sufficient acquaintance with 
it to give a tone to his intellectual character. In early life, the 
young student left his native for the holy city. There he pursued 
his Jewish studies under the direction of the learned and judicious 
Gamaliel: Acts xxii. 8. Emulous of distinction, he took the palm 
in Jewish literature and Pharisaism from all his competitors: Gal. 
1.14. Sincerely attached to the religion of his nation, zealous for all 
the traditions of the elders, a devotee of his discernment and ardour 
could not have resided in the capital, and frequented the temple, 
all the time that the prophet of Nazareth spent in the same places 
or their vicinity, without having had his attention drawn to the 
character of this remarkable personage, to the claims which he had 
openly set up, to the doctrines which he had promulgated, and to 
the extraordinary facts by which he had proved their truth and 
divine authority, facts which his bitterest enemies did not venture 
to contradict. On such a mind these things must have made a 
strong impression. He was well acquainted with the origin and 
history of the novel sect, and knew that its principles tended to 
overthrow the dominant system of religion. With that supercili- 
ousness which marked the distinguished ecclesiastics of the nation, 
he regarded the Nazarenes with unmeasured contempt, and the 
degraded ‘people who knew not the law as accursed :” John vii. 49 

The impulse which had been given to the faith of Jesus after the 
descent of the Holy Spirit only increased his infatuated rage 
against the Christians. 


INTRODUCTION. 





The mental constitution of the Apostle and his religious views 
and habits were formed, therefore, under the combined influence 
of Grecian philosophy and that Jewish theology which was char- 
acterised by Pharisaic strictness and superstition. Thus was he 
subjected to a train of discipline which gradually prepared him to 
enter, by the powerful influence of the animating and enlightening 
Spirit of God, upon the sphere of action for which divine Proyi- 
dence had long before marked him out: Gal. i. 15. 

It has been supposed by some writers that previously to that 
persecuting journey to Damascus which resulted in the Apostle’s 
conversion, he had been brought by reflection and experience to 
feel the inadequacy of Judaism’ to meet the wants of man’s moral 
nature. Olshausen makes the following representation. ‘The 
energy and determination of his will made him carry out his prin- 
ciples as a Pharisee to a fanatical extreme against the Christians ; 
and it was not till he had done this that he was possessed by that 
deep longing which this system of life could not satisfy, and which 
led him to perceive'the state into which he had fallen.”* Neander 
also gives a still stronger representation of “‘internal impressions 
made in opposition to his will” on his Pharisaic mind, raising 
thoughts favourable to the new religion, and “ producing an inward 
struggle repelled as Satanic suggestions.” I am unable to per- 
ceive any sufficient evidence to support these views. There is no 
proof that such deep longing or agitating impressions influenced 
his mind in the manner stated by these writers. The account in 
the Acts of the Apostles contains no intimation to this effect. A 
persecuting spirit, “breathing out threatenings and slaughter,” 
characterises the agent of the Synagogue up to the very moment 
of his miraculous conversion. We have no evidence that any 
change took place in his mind favourable to sacred truth until that 
period, and this change is to be attributed wholly to divine influ- 
ence. Olshausen allows that ‘the miraculous vision, and the 
startling nature of the announcement that he who was still the 
raging opposer of the crucified was henceforth to be his messenger 
to the Gentiles, are of course to be considered as the decisive causes 
of the sudden change in his spiritual state.” This is certainly true. 
But he adds: “ At the same time, we cannot doubt, that his sin- 
cere striving after righteousness by the mere works of the law had 

* General Introduction to the Epistles of St. Paul, p. 3. 


+ Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c. History of the Planting of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 
Hamburgh, 1832, Vol. I. p. 73. 


i] 


INTRODUCTION. xi 


already, though perhaps without his own consciousness, awakened 
in the depth of his soul the conviction, that his own strength could 
not attain to the+fulfilment of righteousness, and this conviction 
brought with it the longing after something higher.” A partial 
preparation of mind, therefore, for the miraculous call seems to be 
presumed; and it is consistent with this supposition, that Tholuck 
on John xii. 28, 29, adduces the instance of St. Paul alone hearing 
the internal voice, (Acts xxii. 9,) in illustration of his theory, that 
this voice can only be heard when the mind is in a susceptible 
spiritual condition. The writers above quoted draw an inference 
from what they assume to be the state of mind of the zealous 
Hebrew, and then state this inference as a fact. Whereas, neither 
the condition of mind nor the inference therefrom can be proved to 
have existed, although it may be granted, that it would have been 
very reasonable to have felt the one and deduced the other. This 
state of mind, which they regard as preceding the miraculous call 
of the Apostle, ought to be placed immediately after it; and was 
probably effective during his state of blindness preceding the visit 
of Ananias. 

The origin of the church at Rome is a point involved in great 
obscurity, owing to the want of very early and definite data. 
Certain statements contained in some of the early fathers* have 
been thought to prove that the Apostles Peter and Paul or one of 
them planted Christianity in the imperial capital. But they merely 
show that the Christian body was established and settled in that 
city by their exertions. This may be entirely true, even if it had 
been formed there long before the time of their visit. When St. 
Paul wrote his Epistle the Roman church was in a very flourishing 
condition, and had excited general attention, (i. 8;) which shows 
that it must have been founded a considerable time before. The 
language of the leading Jews at Rome with whom he had an inter- 
view three days after his arrival there, (Acts xxviii, 22,) has been 
alleged to prove, that they either were or affected to be unac- 
quainted with the existence of a Christian community in that city. 
But such an inference is unfounded. They merely request to hear 
the visitor’s sentiments, remarking that the Nazarene “sect was 
everywhere spoken against.” It is very conceivable, too, that so 
populous a city as Rome may have contained very many Christians, 
although they may have excited but little attention among Jews, 


* See Ireneus, Ady. Her. Lib. iii. Cap. 1, p 199, Edit. Grabe, Oxon. 1702; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles, 
Lib. ii. Cap. 14, 15, 25, iii. 1, vi. 14. 


xii INTRODUCTION. 


eS 


some of whom were prejudiced and others indifferent; and indeed, 
that these may have thought it expedient, in their interview with 
St. Paul, to conceal what knowledge they possessed. The idea of 
the Roman church consisting of two parties, Christians chiefly of 
Jewish extraction who adhered to the law, and Gentile converts 
who were free from any such attachment, has been very prevalent. 
It has even been supposed that the two parties were in a state 
of direct opposition; and the theory has been advanced that St. 
Peter was regarded as the head of one and St. Paul of the other, 
and thus the discrepancies respecting the early episcopal Roman 
succession have been attempted to be reconciled. See Cave’s 
Life of St. Clemens, Bishop of Rome, Sect. 4, pp. 188-190, Philadel- 
phia, 1810. If such views were well founded, the Christian com- 
munity at Rome must indeed have made itself known, but in a 
very different manner from that stated by the Apostle. But the 
theory is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Certain parts of the 
Epistle evince the existence of differences of opinion and practice 
in matters indifferent, but not of open collision between the parties, 
a result which the wise directions of the author are well adapted 
and were doubtless intended to prevent. It is very probable that 
_those Hellenistic Jews from Rome who witnessed the effects of the 
miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 
(Acts ii. 10,) obtained some acquaintance with the Gospel, and per- 
haps were converted to it, before they left Jerusalem, and that, on 
their return, they informed their brethren of “the wonderful works 
of God” which they had seen, and announced to them the glad 
tidings of salvation. Hither these or some other very early con- 
verts must have originally planted the church of Rome. The little 
community thus formed appears to have grown rapidly. 

In the time of the emperor Claudius, the Jews were exiled 
from Rome. Suetonius, in his Life of Claudius, Cap. xxv., states 
as the cause, that the Jews had been engaged in-a tumult, im- 
pulsore Chresto. Hence it is not improbable, that either a real 
attempt of some imperfectly converted Jews to raise an insurrec- 
tion, or a calumnious charge of this natnre, had given occasion to 
the edict of banishment. It is reasonable to think that many 
Christians were confounded with the Jews and shared their exile; 
and thus we find Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, whither they 
had arrived from Rome, and where they became known to St. 
Paul: Acts xviii. 2, 8,26. Their acquaintance with him must 
have ripened into a close intimacy, as Aquila remained a con- 


INTRODUCTION. xiii 


siderable time with him at Corinth and Ephesus, and they both 
followed the same occupation. It is easy to perceive that thus 
the Apostle might become familiar with a considerable number 
of Roman Christians, and that gradually his knowledge of the 
state of their church and the interest which he felt in its welfare 
would have greatly increased. 

That the Roman church contained very many Jewish converts 
is in itself altogether probable. This was the case with most of 
the early churches, and the general scope of the Epistle refers to 
a Jewish doctrinal element as influential, against which the 
Apostle found it necessary to guard his readers, and to which 
Gentile converts would have been exposed. Still it would seem 
that a large moiety of the Christians at Rome must have been of 
Gentile extraction. This is the only supposition which seems to 
harmonize with certain declarations in the Epistle. The writer 
refers to his commission to make known the Gospel among “ all 
the Gentiles,” and adds, ‘among whom are ye also the called of 
Jesus Christ :” i. 5, 6. He speaks of those at Rome to whom he 
is “ready to preach the Gospel,” as a portion of the Gentiles: 
vs. 138-15. So also in xi. 13, “I speak to you Gentiles;” and in 
xy. 16, he represents himself as a priest of Jesus Christ “ offering 
up the Gentiles,” and this in close connection with the boldness 
he had used in addressing the Roman Christians. That the word 
which he employs cannot be understood in the general sense 
of people so as to comprehend the Jews, is evident from the 
manner in which the Apostle employs it to mark the distinction 
between them and the Gentiles. Comp. ii. 14, 24, i. 29, ix. 24, 
30, xi. 13, 25, xv. 9-12, 16, 18, 27, xvi. 4, 26. 

The Christian body at Rome consisted then of both classes of 
converts. Each had doubtless its own habits of thinking and 
feeling in reference to the general topics of Christianity, and un- 
questionably differences of views and practices prevailed among 
them to some extent, as must have been the case in a greater or 
less degree in every Christian community. But there is no 
sufficient reason to think that the Epistle was composed in order 
to reconcile such diversity of views or to conciliate the differing 
parties. Neither internal nor external evidence sufficiently clear 
and decisive can be adduced to sustain this theory, which at some 
periods and with not a few commentators has been the prevailing 
one. As the Apostle had become greatly interested in the pros- 
perity of the Christians at Rome, and an opportunity of preaching 


XIV INTRODUCTION, 





the Gospel there had never been afforded him; he embraces the 
occasion presented by the intended visit of Phebe, to give them 
in writing a general view of its most important doctrines, namely, 
those of redemption by Christ, of justification through faith, of 
sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and of its design to promote the 
salvation of all men. The Epistle may be conveniently divided 
into two parts; the doctrinal, comprehending the first eleven 
chapters, and the hortatory, contained in the remaining five. The 
leading topics of the former portion are justification by faith in 
opposition to works either moral or ceremonial, and the compre- 
hensiveness of the Christian scheme of salvation, which extends 
its blessings indiscriminately to all mankind. Other most import- 
ant matters are interwoven with the development and discussion 
of these two fundamental and leading principles, of which the 
author, notwithstanding the diversified character of his instructions, 
never loses sight. As the ensuing work contains a somewhat 
minute Analysis of this whole portion, divided into separate 
sections, it would be superfluous to enter into any particulars in 
this Introduction. 

It is unnecessary to say anything in defence of the genuineness 
of the Epistle to the Romans, which has scarcely ever been con- 
troverted. It appears to have been known by Clement of Rome 
and the venerable Polycarp, both of whom quote from it. The 
former in his Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 35, cites the words 
of i. 80, 82: “For they that do these things are odious to God; 
and not only they that do them, but also all such as approve of 
those that do them.” The latter in his Epistle to the Philippians, 
chap. 6, extracts from xii. 17, “ Providing what is good both in 
the sight of God and man.” 

Although the inseription appended to the Epistle is not a 
genuine portion of it, the statements which it contains are never- 
theless correct. ‘“ Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent 
by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.” A comparison of 
various texts shows that the letter was written at the time of St. 
Paul's “ three months’ ” residence in Greece which is mentioned in 
Acts xx. 8. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4, where he speaks of his inten- 
tion to send a collection to Jerusalem and perhaps to go himself, 
with Rom. xv. 25, where, after having nearly finished his letter, 
he mentions the same design of going to Jerusalem. Compare 
also 1 Cor. xvi. 19 with Rom. xvi. 8, from which it seems that 
Aquila and Priscilla had left Corinth and gone to Rome.. A com- 


INTRODUCTION. XV 


parison of Acts xix. 21 with Rom. xv. 28, shows the same purpose 
of visiting Rome after having been at Jerusalem. In xvi. 23, 
Gaius with whom the Apostle was staying sends his salutations 
to the Roman Christians. But from 1 Cor. 1.14 it appears that 
Gaius was a resident of Corinth. So also was Erastus, who in the 
same verse is mentioned as “chamberlain of the city:” Comp. 2 
Tim. iv. 20. Phebe, who most probably was the bearer of the 
letter, was an assistant, and perhaps a deaconess of ‘the church at 
Cenchrea:” Rom. xvi. 1. There can hardly be a doubt, therefore, 
that the inscription is entirely correct. To determine the precise 
time of the composition would require a settlement of the chro- 
nology of St. Paul’s life; and this involves several points of 
difficulty, the data of which are by no means certain. The periods 
adopted by different critics vary from A. D. 52 to 59. 

In preparing the following Analysis and Commentary, my 
chief object has been to present the reader with the interpretation 
which, on careful investigation, appeared to convey the author’s 
meaning. I have availed myself of such assistance as was within 
my reach, although I did not think it necessary to examine in 
detail several comparatively late productions of the prolific 
German press. Wherever it was possible, I have endeavoured to 
substantiate the views given, by Scriptural analogy in addition to 
legitimate usage of language. In employing parallel places, it 
has also been my object collaterally to throw light on the texts 
referred to when they involved any difficulty. That the results 
arrived at will be generally satisfactory is perhaps rather to be 
hoped for than expected, as the topics which must come under 
consideration in such an exegetical work comprehend several 
much controverted points of theology. I can say conscientiously, 
however, that it has been my sincere prayer and most earnest 
effort to be guided by a love of truth; and under the influence 
of this principle, I have laboured to ascertain and express the 
mind of the Apostle. 

As in my previous volume on the Hebrews, I have employed 
the Greek text of Hahn, with a few changes in the punctuation. 
The work of Koppe, which is occasionally referred to, to which 
Ammon added some notes and Excursus, is contained in the 4th 
volume of his Novum Testamentum Greece, perpetua adnotatione 
illustratum, Gottingze, 1806; the Edition of Stuart’s Commentary 
is the second, Andover, 1835; Hodge’s, that of Philadelphia, 
1835. I have availed myself of the translation of Olshausen’s 


xvi INTRODUCTION. 





Commentary contained in the 13th volume of Clark’s Foreign 
Theological Library, Edinburgh, 1849. The English translation of 
Tholuck having been made from his early edition, I have used 
his German work, published at Halle in 1842, entitled Kommentar 
zum Briefe Pauli an die Roemer, which is a much more valuable 
production than the former. If Mr. Robert Haldane had not 
adhered to the English translation of an edition long ago super- 
seded, he might have spared both himself and his readers not a 
few of the censures which he so freely bestows on the able German 
scholar, whose subsequent investigations led him to omit many of 
the statements objected to. The strong theological bias of the 
Scotch polemical writer shows itself in many of his doctrinal 
expositions, and influences his exegetical inquiries. His “ Expo- 
sition of the Romans” was published, from the fifth Edinburgh 
Edition, by Carter, New York, in 1847, and contains 746 pages. 
The Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti of Morus. in two vol- 
umes, Leipsic, 1802, to which I have once or twice referred, is a 
work of great value for the Biblical student. He must, however, 
be on his guard against the neological tendencies of Hichstzdt, 


' his annotator and editor. 


ANALYSIS 


OF THE 


EPISThE TO THe ROMANS: 





SECTION I. 


. Cap. I, 1-15. 
INTRODUCTION. 


Tue author announces himself as an Apostle of the promised Messiah, 
who, although descended from David, was God’s glorified Son in his exalted 
condition, which commenced with his resurrection: 1-5. He salutes all 
the members of the Church of Rome, which was celebrated for its primitive 
faith, and expresses kis earnest wish to visit them for mutual benefit, 
although as yet he had not been able to accomplish his purpose: 6-13. 
A deep sense of the divine favours which he had received prompts his 
ardent desire to benefit all men, and to proclaim the Gospel even at Rome, 
notwithstanding the probability of its rejection by many, and also of his 
persecution: 14, 15. 


SwCLrone ii: 


Cuap. I. 16-32. 


THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE PORTION OF THE EPISTLE, 
WITH A STATEMENT OF THE MORAL DELINQUENCIES AND TRANSGRESSIONS 
OF THE HEATHEN WORLD. 


As a reason for glorying in the Gospel, it is stated to be divinely efficacious 
to salvation, the condition being faith, and the benefit being intended for 
all who comply therewith. It contains God’s scheme of justification, 
which is wholly of a living and growing faith, and reveals his anger against 
sin: 16-18. Even the works of creation have, from the very beginning, 
made the being and attributes of God sufficiently known to become a rule 


2 ANALYSIS OF THE 





to men with reason and conscience. But the Heathen disregarded this 
source of religious knowledge, and dishonoured God, falling into gross 
idolatry, in consequence of which they were abandoned by: God, and 
allowed to perpetrate the most abominable immoralities. A description of 
Heathen wickedness cleses the Section, and with it the evidence that the 
Gentiles could advance no claim to justification on the ground of moral 
obedience : 19-82, 





SECTION III 


Cuap. II. 


THE INCONSISTENCY OF JEWS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF GENTILES, AND 
THEIR FOLLY IN TRUSTING TO EXTERNAL PRIVILEGES, 


Tue Apostle here censures the Jews for their wicked inconsistency, in 
practising the same vices for which they unscrupulously condemned the 
Gentiles. He tells them that God’s judgment is irrespective of persons, 
and. governed by principles of equity. Consequently they cannot escape 
merited punishment hereafter, when all, both Jews and Gentiles, shall be 
alike rewarded according to their respective characters: 1-11. The pun 
ishment of those who, without the advantage of a direct revelation, have 
nevertheless subjected themselves to the divine wrath, shall be proportion- 
ate to the degree of their religious knowledge, while that of Jews shall be 
awarded according to their superior religious advantages. To become 
acceptable to God, it is by no means sufficient to know and hear his law; 
it must be sincerely and conscientiously obeyed. And if individuals among 
the Heathen, living without the advantages of a direct revelation, do in 
this their natural condition endeavour to live agreeably to the divine law, 
their own reason and conscience being their governing principle, they show 
that this law is really their inward guide, though imperfect and conse 
quently leaving them in a state of indecision, their reflections alternately 
accusing or apologising: 12-16. The Jew, with all his real and his boasted 
privileges, with all his knowledge and confidence in his own ability, with 
the divine delineation of religious knowledge and truth which he possesses, 
while he does the very things which he denounces, is not only absurdly in- 
consistent, but has become thereby the occasion of dishonour to God; 
17-24. Then the author repeats more particularly what he had before said. 
Judaism is indeed beneficial to those who sincerely obey the law of God ; 
but disobedient Jews are no more acceptable to him than disobedient 
Gentiles. And Gentiles who sincerely obey the law of nature which God 
has implanted within them, are as acceptable to him as they would be if 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 3 





they had been Jews; and, moreover, such Gentiles shall condemn those 
Jews, who, notwithstanding the great privileges which they enjoy from the 
Scriptures and their covenant relation to God, do nevertheless break the 
divine law. For the true Jew, he who deserves the honourable name of 
the ancestor whose brethren were to praise him,* is in his heart what his 
covenant profession indicates, and however he may be disesteemed by 
men, shall be praised and honoured by his God: 25-29. 


SECTION IV. 


Cuap. III. 


JEWISH OBJECTION MET AND SINFULNESS PROVED. GENERAL CONCLUSION 
DRAWN. 


Tur representation made in the former chapter-being so directly opposed 
to the Jew’s prejudice and long cherished self-esteem, very naturally raises 
in his vain and carnal mind feelings of opposition and hostility. These he 
vents in the objection, What, then, is the advantage of being a Jew? The 
answer is, Much in various respects, but chiefly in the divine revelation, of 
which the Hebrew Scriptures are the depository. The faithlessness of a 
part of the nation can have no influence prejudicial to God’s fidelity. 
He is essentially true, as the Psalmist represents him: 1-4. But, resumes 
the Jew, if, as you maintain, our iniquity, leading to a rejection of the 
gospel, does in reality establish and tend to disseminate its scheme of 
justification among the Gentiles;—Well, rejoins the Apostle, shall we 
then absurdly accuse God of injustice in punishing you? Impossible, for 
he is the righteous judge of the world. The Jew renews the objection. 
If my false and wicked conduct contribute to the extending of God’s truth 
and glory, am I nevertheless, through whom God is thus honoured, to be 
condemned and punished asa sinner? The answer is, Certainly, unless 
the mischievous principle be maintained, that the end sanctifies the means, 
the advocates of which are justly condemned: 5-8. 

The Apostle then reverts to the subject of justification. He puts the 
question: Are Jews, in this respect, in a better condition than Gentiles? 
This he answers in the negative, and proceeds to prove that they, as well 
as the Gentiles, are delinquent, being represented by their own sacred 


*The author undoubtedly alludes to the meaning of the word Jew as a descendant of Judah. 
Thus in Gen. xlix. 8, the Hebrew words for Judah and praise are of the same root. Observe also the 
language of Leah in xxix. 35: ‘ Now will I praise the Lord, and she called his name Juduh.” On the 
former passage, Aben Ezra remarks: “Thou art Judah; according to thy name, and so (it follows,) 
thy brethren shall praise thee.” 


4 ANALYSIS OF THE 





writers as grievous sinners, the descriptions being certainly intended of 
them: 10-12. All mankind are proved then to be guilty, and conse- 
quently it follows that justification is unattainable by obedience to the 
moral law, which was not promulgated with the intent of procuring this 
blessing, but in order to give men a proper consciousness of sin: 19, 20. 
But now, the gospel being established, justification, irrespective of law, is 
made known, the truth and reality of which were attested by the whole 
tenour of the former dispensation; that justification which is extended to 
all sinners who believe in Christ, and which is founded on the redemption 
effected by his atonement. Him God hath publicly exhibited to the world 
as a proper sacrifice, in this way declaring his sense of justice to his 
violated law, and at the same time securing a sufficient ground whereon 
he may justify the believer. Such a system excludes all self-confidence 
and boast in human merit: 21-27. The general conclusion, in reference 
to the whole argument in the three chapters, is then drawn,—namely, that 
man’s justification is by faith, Thus God appears as the universal parent 
of men, accepting both Jews and Gentiles on the very same condition. In 
conclusion, the Apostle guards against the supposition that this doctrine 
makes the law nugatory, affirming that, in a very comprehensive sense, it 
establishes its usefulness and necessity: 28-31. 


SECTION V. 


Cuar. IV. 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVED AND APPLIED BY THE INSTANCE OF ABRAHAM, 


Tuvs far the Apostle has conducted his argument with a view to the unde- 
niable fact that both Gentiles and Jews have flagrantly broken God’s 
moral law, and consequently that justification on the ground of obedience 
thereto is precluded. And it is the moral Jaw to which generally in the 
argumentative part of the Epistle he refers. But this is not invariably 
the case. The Jews attached an undue estimate to their ceremonial and 
ritual law, and especially to the initiatory rite of circumcision. And as 
this institution originated in the person of Abraham, their great ancestor, 
and from him had been perpetuated in his descendants through Isaac and 
Jacob to their own times, their connection by this covenant rite with the 
distinguished patriarch had become the occasion of extraordinary self- 
confidence. This ecclesiastical and national pride had been rebuked by 
John the Baptist ;* but weakness and vanity, often inseparable associates, 


* Matt. iii. 9. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 5 





are not readily dislodged from their position, as they cannot easily be made 
to feel the weight of reason and argument. The same confidence was 
fondly cherished, and it gives occasion to the Apostle’s remarks. He, 
begins by an inquiry: Shall it be said that our great ancestor found the 
blessing of acceptance with God by means of anything ritual and external ? 
It cannot be. For if Abraham were justified by works, whether moral or 
ceremonial or both, he would have had somewhat to boast of or exult in. 
But the Scripture puts his justification upon a ground wholly different, 
namely, his faith ; which faith of his was graciously regarded by God as 
its accepted condition. Now it is a principle universally conceded, that 
the labourer claims his reward or stipulated payment as his right. It is a 
debt which his employer owes him, and it is received as such and not as a 
gratuity. But, for the benefit of the true believer, whose good works are 
not done in order thereby to claim this result, God regards his faith as 
available for his justification: 1-5, This divine method of accepting sinners 
was well known to David, for in describing the blessed condition of the 
justified man, he speaks simply of the pardon of his sins; which, of course, 
implies that his acceptance took place, not on the ground of his moral 
obedience, by which he had failed to secure any claifh to favour: 6-8. Is 
this blessed condition exclusively that of the Jews? In order to answer 
this question, it must be kept in mind that the Scripture most expressly 
declares, that Abraham’s faith was the condition on which he was justified. 
Now under what circumstances of Abraham was this condition made avail- 
able? Was it before he had received the external sign of the covenant or 
after ? Before, most certainly, that sign being an attestation of his previous 
justification through the fuith which he had cherished before he received 
the sign. And, in accordance with the divine intention, this was the case 
in order that the great patriarch might become the spiritual father of all 
believers, so that even those of them who have not received the sign may 
nevertheless be justified; and the father also of his lineal descendants 
through Jacob, not simply to all who are so descended, but to those of 
them who imitate that faith of Abraham which he had before his circum- 
cision. For the grand promise of being lord of the world, which was made 
to him with a particular view to the Messiah as his most distinguished 
spiritual descendant, was not given through or in consequence of the law, 
but of that justification which comes through faith: 9-18. For faith and 
the promise attached to it would be useless, if the blessings came through 
a reliance on the law. But this cannot be the case, because the law is 
broken, and its breach is followed by punishment. The promise is there- 
fore graciously of faith, and thus is secured to all the spiritual progeny of 
Abraham, who is spoken of as the father of them all in the view of the 
Almighty One. Against all seeming probability he believed in the promise 
of God, that he and his aged wife should become the parents of a son, 


6 ANALYSIS OF THE 








being well assured of the divine ability and willingness to verify the 
promise, This faith of his, which, by its persevering steadfastness, notwith- 
standing long continued discouragements, showed itself to be a living prin- 
ciple, was accepted as justifying: 14-22. That it was so accepted is not 
~ecorded simply to eulogize the patriarch; but for our instruction and 
comfort, who shall also be accepted, if we believe in Christ, who died and 
rose again in order to secure to us this inestimable benefit : 23-25. 


SECTION VI. 


Cuap, V. 1-11. 
THE HAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF A STATE OF JUSTIFICATION, 


Jusrirication is followed by peace of conscience and amity with God, 
procured through Christ, by whom, on the condition of faith, we are 
introduced into that favourable state of the gospel in which we are, and 
therefore can rejoice in a well founded hope of happiness, the fruition of 
which is partly here and partly hereafter: 1,2. And not only so, but, 
under the influence of such hope, we can rejoice even in afflictions, knowing 
that their tendency is to produce patience ; and that, a well tried character ; 
and that again increases and confirms our hope ; and that hope never makes 
us ashamed by failing us in any exigency; for God’s love to us is com- 
municated abundantly to our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he hath 
bestowed on us: 3-5. For when we were in a condition of spiritual 
weakness, Christ, in suitable time, died on our account and in our place, 
although we were ungodly and sinful persons ; thus showing the greatness 
of divine love. For, in the place of a religious man, scarcely any one 
would be willing to die; or, the more vividly to illustrate the representa- 
tion, it may be made somewhat differently, thus: For, in place of the good, 
the religious and benevolent man, whose life is spent in benefiting his 
fellow-creatures, some one perhaps might even venture to give up his life. 
This is the utmost limit to which human love may ever be expected to 
extend. But the peculiar love of God is shown in this, that he gave Christ 
to die for us while we were grievous sinners, and, of course, enemies to his 
law: 6-8, If, therefore, we have now been justified by his atoning 
sufferings and death, much rather may we reasonably expect deliverance 
by him from future punishment. or, to repeat the same general truth 
somewhat differently, if, while we were opposed to him in character and 
conduct, we nevertheless became reconciled to God through the atonement 
made by the death of his Son, much rather, after having been so recon- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 7 


ciled, may we confidently look: for salvation through him, who lives eter- 
nally in heaven as our glorified and immortal intercessor: 9,10. We 
rejoice, therefore, not only in our Christian hope, not only in the trials of 
life which tend to our best interests, but also in God through Christ, who 
hath now reconciled us, and given us a pledge of everlasting and unbounded 
happiness: 9-11. 


SECTION «VET, 


Cuap. V. 12-21. 


THE UNHAPPY EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF ADAM ARE MORE THAN COUNTER- 
BALANCED BY THE BLESSINGS OBTAINED THROUGH CHRIST. 


Iv accordance with what has already been said, the Apostle proceeds as 
follows: In the course of his remarks he shows that we have, at the very 
least, gained through Christ what we lost through Adam. As sin was 
introduced into the world by our first parent, and followed by misery and 
ruin, and in this way misery and ruin pervaded the whole human race, 
inasmuch as all became partakers of a sinful nature, and in accordance 
therewith committed actual sin :—For, although during the period of man’s 
existence that preceded the Mosaic Jaw sin existed, yet, as sin is not 
accounted where there is no law, and there was none which made mortality 
and the evils necessarily connected, therewith the penalty of its infraction, 
and nevertheless mortality universally prevailed, its origin and dominion 
must be ascribed to some other cause; and that is the one just stated, 
namely, the sin of Adam entailing on all his posterity a sinful nature, 
which produces in all conscious agents sinful acts: 12-14. There is a 
correspondence between Adam and Christ as regards their relation to the 
human family. But this correspondence is not in all respects analogous. 
If, in the one case, misery and ruin follow, much rather may we expect 
abundance of grace and benefit as the bountiful gift of God, in the other. 
And if the sentence pronounced on one offence condemned, much rather is 
it to be expected that the forgiveness should be extended to many offenees. 
If, on the one hand, death was allowed to reign, much rather, on the other, 
may we look for the ultimate triumph of those who receive the plenitude 
ef God’s gracious gifts through Christ. As, therefore, one offence occa- 
sioned the condemnation of all, so also does one course of righteous 
obedience and submission afford the means to all of that justification 
which brings along with it everlasting life. For, to express in other terms 
what has already been said, as Adam’s offence became the occasion of the 
sinfilness of his descendants, so did Christ’s obedience to his Father’s will 


8 ANALYSIS OF THE 





become the ground of their justification and eternal salvation, which shall 
be received and enjoyed on the condition of faith and obedience: 15-19, 
The Jaw was introduced not to justify, but to show the nature of sin, and 
thus it became the occasion of exciting sinful nature in opposition to its 
demands, and in these circumstances grace abounds still more, God’s favour 
extending even to life eternal ; 20, 21. 


SECTION VIII. 


Cuar. VI, 


THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND SALVATION BY DIVINE 
FAVOUR, AFFORD NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN, BUT RATHER PRESENT THE 
STRONGEST MOTIVES TO HOLINESS, 


Do the doctrines stated sanction the inference, that we may indulge in sin 
in order to afford full scope for the exercise of divine favour? Most cer- 
tainly not. This would be at variance with our condition as baptized into 
Christ, by which baptism we became spiritually dead, buried, and risen, 
through divine power; and moreover, avow our obligations to abandon sin 
and live a life of holiness. The moral-resurrection thus implied, and 
further inculeated, implies also a belief in a future glorious resurrection, 
which, according to the divine intention, as shown by the scheme of the 
gospel, is a result of the moral: 1-9. As Christ died once on account 
of sin, and now liveth in heaven to the glory of God, so should we regard 
ourselves as dead to sin and alive to righteousness. We must not, there- 
fore, permit sin to rule us, but rather submit to the holy law of God. And 
this we are enabled to do, inasmuch as we live not under the inefficient 
system of law, but under the gospel, which imparts divine strength. It 
were preposterous, then, and grossly inconsistent, to practise sin: 10-16. 
It is a cause of thankfulness that you have abandoned your former sinful 
courses, and have accepted the gospel. You have shaken off the yoke of 
your former master, sin, and assumed that of another, God and righteous- 
ness. As, in the one state, you derived no advantage from such a service, 
but the contrary ; so now, in the other, you have present benefit in a holy 
and religious character, and the future reward of everlasting life in prospect. 
For the due desert of sin is ruin; but the gracious gift which God imparts 
through Christ is everlasting felicity : 17-23. 

The two leading thoughts in the Chapter are these: that continuing in 
sin is to the fully baptized Christian both impossible and inconsistent ; and 
that, as we live under the gracious system of the Gospel, sin must not be 
permitted to rule us. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 9 





SHC TLON Ex, 


Cuar. VII—VIII. 17. 


THE LAW CAN NEITHER JUSTIFY NOR SANCTIFY. IT IS THE GOSPEL WHICH 
ALONE CAN MEET, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE WANTS OF MAN’S WEAK AND 
SINFUL CONDITION. ¥ 


Ir is the prerogative of law to rule the man during his life. In the case 
of the marriage relation, the death of either party dissolves the obligation 
on the other. And this analogy may be applied to the connection of the 
Jews with the law. You have become figuratively dead to it, that is, your 
union with it is dissolved; and this, in order that’ you may be spiritually 
connected with Christ, the risen bridegroom, and thus produce the genuine 
fruits of holiness. Formerly, indeed, our sinful passions roused into vig- 
orous action by occasion of the law, showed their really ruinous character. 
But now, we are delivered from the incidental consequences of law, and, 
through the Gospel, placed in a condition to serve God spiritually : 1-6. 
Shall we therefore charge the moral law with sinfulness? This were a 
gross perversion of the truth. On the contrary, this law shows fully and 
clearly what sin is. It displays its deadly nature. This mischievous prin- 
ciple avails itself of the moral law to incite my natural evil passions. 
Formerly I lived without a consciousness of the obligation of God’s law ; 
but when the perception of this obligation came home to my conscience, 
my sinful principle displayed its vital energy, and moral and spiritual ruin 
was shown to be the inevitable consequence. Thus God’s holy law, the 
intention and natural bearings of which are to advance spiritual life and 
happiness, was made the occasion of transgression and destruction, through 
the deceitful influence of sin. We see, then, that God’s moral law is in 
the highest degree excellent, and that it is human sinfulness which has be- 
come the cause of all our unhappiness, thus displaying itself in its true 
colours: 7-13. We know indeed the spirituality of God’s law; but, in 
my natural condition, destitute of the grace of the Gospel and under the 
uncontrolled influence of sin, am compelled by this tyrant to do what the 
better part of my nature, reason and conscience, so far enlightened as to 
see the excellence of God’s law but destitute of spiritual energy, revolts 
from. So that it is not properly I, not my reason and conscience, but my 
degraded nature that commits the sin. I know and feel, alas, that in this 
sinful nature of mine there is no spiritual good. I can, indeed, indulge 
the vain wish, but I have no power to obey, and therefore it is that I act in 
opposition to conscience and reason, thus showing that my character and 


10 ANALYSIS OF THE 





conduct are shaped by my degraded moral condition. I feel that when I 
would do God’s will, the predominating influence in me is contrary thereto. 
For, although my reason and conscience are indeed pleased with the law, 
yet this unrestrained natural principle opposes their dictates, and subjects me 
to a state of absolute thraldom. Miserable man do I feel myself to be! 
Flow can I obtain deliverance; 14-24, I thank God that he hath pro- 
vided means through Jesus Christ. And thus, in my Christian condition of 
deliverance, although indeed my natural depravity still yields to the de- 
mands of sin, yet my+reason and conscience and now delivered spiritual 
being, not only approve of, not only are pleased with, the law of God, but 
actually and practically serve it, which before was impossible. In this 
state, then, I am no longer under condemnation, having been delivered by 
the Gospel of Christ; which effects what the law could not do, making a 
satisfactory atonement, and procuring divine assistance, whereby the Chris- 
tian is enabled to live a life, not in accordance with fleshly impulses, but 
with those of the Holy Spirit of God: 25-viii. 4. Devotion to the carnal 
principle, which is opposed to God’s law, produces utter ruin; while sub- 
mission to the spiritual, brings, along with it the truest happiness. If you 
have God’s spirit, you are not so devoted. And if you have, and are 
therefore truly Christ’s, although indeed the frail body must succumb to 
the natural effects of sin, yet the soul has already a principle of divine 
life ; and, in the end, God will raise to life even your present corruptible 
bodies, on account of the Spirit, whom he hath given you as a pledge of 
this result. We are therefore under the strongest obligation to live ac- 
cording to the promptings and aids of the Spirit, and thus to be God’s sons. 
The possession of this Spirit is incompatible with a condition of servitude to 
sin, and of consequent apprehension. The results of his action and influ- 
ence are directly opposite. He makes us the adopted children of God and 
enables us most affectionately to recognise the privilege. He attests the 
blessed relation whence flow the consequences, fellowship with -Christ, te 

gether with suffering and glorification along with him: 5-17, ; 


EPISTLE T0 THE ROMANS. i] 


a TT 


SECTION X. 


Cuap. VIII. 18-89. 


THE TRIALS OF LIFE AND THE BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL BOTH HERE AND 
HEREAFTER COMPARED. GOD’S PURPOSE TO CONFER ALL THESE BLESSINGS 
ON HIS REDEEMED. CONSEQUENT EXULTATION AND TRIUMPH. 


I recarp all the sufferings of the present life, however afflictive they may 
be, as not at all comparable to the glory of that state of happiness which the 
gospel secures to its recipients. God’s creatures have long been waiting 
for some such improved and blessed condition, And such expectation is 
quite reasonable.’ For they have been subjected to the present unsatisfac- 
tory and miserable condition, on account of God’s glory, and in order to 
advance his purpose of leading men to ultimate happiness, of which 
they cherish the hope. For there shall be a glorious deliverance. And, as 
it is true that mankind in general have been in a state of distress and 
anguish until the present time; so it is also true that we, the favoured recip- 
ients of the divine blessing, do also deeply lament our degraded condition, 
and wait for the fulness of Christian blessedness, when our adoption as 
God’s children shall be publicly recognised and also completed by the 
deliverance of our bodies from corruptibility, in the glorious resurrection 
at the last day: 18-23. We are saved indeed, but still we are in a state 
in which hope must be continually exercised, and “ patience have her perfect 
work.” And, as hope assists us, so also does the Spirit of God, who 
prompts in us most earnest and deeply felt though not to be fully uttered 
intercessions, which are in entire accordance with the will of God: 24-27. 
We know also that all the events of life promote the good of those who 
love God, and are partakers of the gospel which his benevolent mind hath 
planned. Them from eternity he regarded with affection; he predeter- 
mined them to be like his Son in moral character, in suffering, and in 
happiness ; so that of this vast band of united brothers he should be the 
head. And, in harmony with this affectionate regard, he hath so called 
them that they received his gospel ; and he justified and glorified them. 
28-30. Who now can venture, with any prospect of success, to oppose 
those whom God sustains? What will or power can stand in opposition 
to God’s?. What blessing can be too vast for our Christian expectations ? 
He who gave up his Son cannot be supposed to withhold any good thing. 
Nothing further is to be thought of or wished for. Who will dare to 
accuse those whom God selects and regards as his choice ones? Will God, 
who justifies them? Who condemns? Does Christ, who died, who 


12 ANALYSIS OF THE 


rose, who sits at God’s right hand, ever more to intercede? Who or 
what shall sever us from Christ’s love? Shall all the trials of life, 
however hard, lead us to withdraw from him, and thus destroy our 
connection? No, most assuredly. We triumph over all through his grace 
who hath so loved us. I express my feeling in the firmest persuasion that 
no created being whatever can effect such a severance: 31-39. 


SECTION XI. 


Cravs. (UX: xX Xi. 


UNBELIEVING JEWS ARE REJECTED AND BELIEVING GENTILES ADMITTED IN 
THEIR PLACE, YET THE REJECTION OF THE JEWISH NATION IS NOT AB- 
SOLUTELY FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE, ON THEIR REPENTANCE AND FAITH 
THEY SHALL BE RESTORED, 


Arter representing the absolute necessity of an efficient plan of salvation, 
and the sufficiency and grandeur of that of the gospel, it was natural that 
such a mind as that of the Apostle, in view of the melancholy fact that 
the mass of his nation rejected it, should be overwhelmed with the deepest 
grief. He gives vent to his feelings, assuring his unhappy brethren by 
the strongest asseverations, that he suffers habitual distress on their ac- 
count, and that, in order to secure their ultimate happiness, he could even 
forego the blessings of a connection with Christ, and subject himself to the 
greatest possible evil, if such a devotion were allowable and right. He 
displays at large the glorious privileges of his nation, ending with what is 
indeed the very chief, namely, that from them, sprang the Messiah in his 
human nature, that wonderful being, who, in his divine, is supreme God, 
and to be eternally adored: ix. 1-5, 

But, notwithstanding this unhappy condition of the Jews, although as a 
nation they have rejected the promised Messiah and consequently have 
themselves been rejected by God, it is not to be assumed that God’s prom- 
ises to their forefathers have failed of accomplishment. Some, and not a 
few, have chosen the better part. It is to be considered that the Israelite 
who is really worthy of the name is inwardly religious. It is not merely 
a connection with the people of Israel by lineal descent from the patriarchs, 
which constitutes the true Israelite in the spiritual sense, nor is it such a 
descent from the great founder of the race, which makes persons the spirit- 
ual children of Abraham, This is followed by an illustration of the doc- 
trine drawn from a history of the patriarchs, and tending to show that the 
Jews need not be surprised at the statement, for God had always acted with 
their ancestors according to his own purposes, in bestowing particular priv: 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 18 





ileges on the descendants of one to the exclusion of those of another. This 
is demonstrated in the case of Isaac, who was born, not according to the 
ordinary course of nature, but in consequence of God’s particular promise 
miraculously verified. The same preference appears also in the selection 
of Jacob’s posterity rather than Esau’s, previously even to the birth of the 
ancestors, which proves that such preference was not founded on their indi- 
vidual character, but on God’s own purpose. The Jews, therefore, had no 
reason to be surprised, or to complain of the divine arrangement, because 
the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom were limited to a part only of their 
nation. Such a procedure accords with the analogy of God’s former course 
of conduct : 6-13. 

Shall God on this account be charged with unrighteous partiality 2 By 
no means. Yet it is undeniable that, in the distribution of his favours, and 
in the infliction of his punishments, he acts according to his own pleasure. 
And this truth is illustrated in what was said both to Moses and to Pharaoh. 
In the former case, we are told that his own benevolent will prompts and 
imparts the kindness; and this shows that his favours do not depend on 
human inclinations and efforts, but on divine goodness. In the latter, the 
Egyptian monarch is represented as sustained by his providence for the 
full display of his glory. And thus we see that he extends mercy to, and 
suffers to continue impenitent, whomsoever he will: 14-18. 

Will you object that his will is resistless, and therefore he has no right 
to find fault with any who may become the occasion of carrying it into 
effect? Will you say ‘If God is governed by a regard to his own plans 
which human efforts cannot alter, and if he makes even human wickedness 
and our rejection of the Gospel subserve those plans, why does he find fault 
with us? If he show favour to some, and suffer us to continue obstinate, 
why does he blame us, since such is his will ?”—The first part of the Apos- 
tle’s reply is to this effect. ‘ Admitting that God rejects the greater part of 
your nation, well may it rather be asked, what right has a weak man to 
find fault with the All-Wise and Almighty One, for exercising his just and 
natural prerogative? Has he not, as Creator, the right to place his crea- 
tures in whatever condition he chooses? As well might the thing made 
complain of its maker for not having formed it something else. God has 
plainly a right to put the being which his power hath produced, in any rank 
among his various creatures, and to bestow upon it as many or as few ad- 
vantages as he pleases. You would have had no reason to complain, if he 
had never granted you the benefits of his covenant; and, therefore, cannot 
reasonably object, if, for sufficient reasons and in order to promote most 
important purposes, he withdraws them from you as a nation.’—But this is 
only a general answer to the Jewish objection. The Apostle now proceeds 
to reply more particularly, showing that the Jews have no reason to com- 
plain of their rejection, since God had treated them with the greatest indul- 


14 ANALYSIS OF THE - 


gence, ‘He hath borne long with your sinful conduct and persevering” 
obduracy ; and now, that you have filled up the measure of your sins and 
are fitted for destruction, he hath abandoned you; and he makes your rejec- 
tion the oceasion of extending his Gospel to Gentiles, uniting those who 
embrace it with the faithful Israelites, both of whom he hath prepared for 
the blessings of his kingdom, and both of whom he hath called to the enjoy- 
ment thereof:’ 19-24. 

The Apostle now illustrates what he had said, by applying passages from 
Hosea, in which the prophet speaks of the reception of the ten tribes into 
favour after their long abandonment by God; and also from Isaiah, who an- 
nounces the divine promise, that all the various and repeated excisions to which 
the Jews might be subjected, should not be utter and complete, but, on the 
contrary, that a portion should be preserved to perpetuate the nation. These 
divine promises he explains as verified in part, by the preservation as God’s 
people of that portion who had embraced the Messiah: 25-29.—He then 
sums up the general conclusion, namely, that Gentiles have through faith 
obtained acceptance with God, which Israel as a body has failed to secure. 
The reason of the failure is, that they proceeded on a wrong principle. They 
sought to be justified by works, and rejected the Gospel scheme of faith, and 
thus, as had been predicted, refused, through their incorrigible prejudice, to 
admit the only Messiah: 30-33. 

Cuap. x. The Apostle continues the same subject in this chapter. He 
expresses his earnest desire for the salvation of Israel, acknowledging their 
zeal, directed unhappily to establish their own method of justification in 
opposition to God’s, which is faith in Christ. He is the great and ultimate 
object which the Jaw uniformly held in view, and having come and estab- 
lished a sufficient scheme of justification, he hath forever abolished the law 
which cannot possibly be instrumental to this effect: 1-4. Legal justifica- 
tion might be expressed by doing perfectly the demands of the law, and, 
as a rightful consequence, living in God’s favour as a state to be legitimately 
claimed. But God’s justification, which is by faith, speaks of no such impos- 
sibility. It does not demand as its condition something particularly diffi- 
cult. On the contrary, it offers an expedient within the reach of every sin- 
cere and resolute seeker after truth, namely, the Gospel system received 
by faith, and publicly professed by the true convert: 5-10. This most 
impartial and righteous system knows no difference among men. It pre- 
sents its blessings indiscriminately to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who 
acknowledge Christ as their divine Master and Lord: 11-18. But, in order 
to enjoy these blessings, they must truly believe on him; therefore they 
must hear of him; therefore he must be preached to them; and the 
preacher, in order to preach effectively, must be sent. This is done prin- 
cipally by the Holy Spirit, moulding the minds of those intended for his 
truly Apostolic Ministry, in assimilation to the practical truths of his Gos- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 15 


pel, thus preparing them, by their own experience, as “ scribes instructed 
for the kingdom of heaven,” to make known to men the glad tidings which 
they themselves have duly appreciated; and then, through the institution 
of God’s visible church, publicly admitting them into the honourable 
body: 14-15. 

And what if some have rejected this Gospel? This was predicted and 
might, of course, have been expected. Still, the Gospel has been univer- 
sally disseminated, fully made known both to Jews and Gentiles: 16-18. 
And did not the Israelites know that the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom 
were to be extended to the Gentiles? Certainly they did. For an appeal to 
their great legislator, and equally great evangelical prophet, determines 
the question. Both speak of the rejection of impenitent Jews, and of the 
admission among God’s people, of sincere and faithful Gentiles : 19-21. 

Cuap. xi. Does this admission of the Gentiles in the place of unbelieving 
Jews imply the irrevocable rejection of God’s ancient covenant people ? 
Certainly not. The thought is abhorrent to the Apostle’s feelings, for he 
claims the honour of being an Israelite himself, and a descendant of the 
peculiarly honoured tribe of Benjamin. No, God hath not so rejected his 
people whom he originally most kindly regarded. Consider what is said 
of the state of Israel in the time of Elijah. Although the prophet repre- 
sented himself as alone adhering to the true God, in contradistinction to 
the whole nation, whom he supposed to have apostatised to idolatry, yet 
he is divinely informed, that God had reserved for himself seven thousand 
sincere worshippers. These were the holy germ of the nation, the very 
life principle of its being. Had ten righteous persons been found in Sodom, 
it would not have been destroyed. The spiritual leaven would so far 
have leavened the whole lump as to have preserved it from utter corrup- 
tion. Thus did the seven thousand in the degenerate time of the prophet, 
and thus does now the holy remnant who have accepted Jesus as the 
true Messiah, the choice ones whom God has graciously chosen with the 
view of their becoming partakers of his favours, this gracious choice 
springing entirely from his own benevolence: 1-6. It appears, then, that 
Israel as a nation has not secured what it aimed at, but only that portion 
of the nation which accepted the Gospel. The remainder are unhappily 
given over, in accordance with representations occurring in the Old Tes- 
tament, to judicial blindness, and its deplorable consequences: 7-10. 

Shall we say now that the Jews have been permitted to refuse the 
Gospel, in order to effect their irrevocable rejection and utter ruin? Cer- 
tainly not. The refusal has resulted in the reception of the Gospel by 
Gentiles, and this divine course of eliciting good from evil is kindly pur- 
sued by God in order to incite them to emulate the Gentiles and embrace 
the same faith. And were this to be the result, how vast would be the 
benefit to mankind, since their, rejection by God has been made the 


16 ANALYSIS OF THE 





occasion of so much good to the world in general. If his wisdom causes 
even the unbelief of the Jews to advance his plans by extending a know- 
ledge of the truth, much rather will the same wisdom make their submission 
to the Gospel illustrate its divine origin, and promote the best interests 
of mankind, In hoping for and anticipating the conversion of the Jews, 
I honour my office as an apostle to the Gentiles, whose full and complete 
conversion would be thereby promoted. I therefore so speak as to endea- 
vour to rouse up the dearly beloved brethren of my nation to accept the 
Gospel, that they also may partake of its blessings. The first Jewish 
converts, and the ancient patriarchs from whom the nation is descended, 
are holy in the estimation of God; and so, in a limited sense, is the whole 
body. Let the Gentile converts remember, that the Hebrews were first 
the people of God, with the believing portion of whom they have but 
lately become incorporated; and let them learn to retain the advantages 
of this their spiritual position by humility and faith. Let them not boast 
themselves against that unhappy people, lest they also fall away and be 
rejected: 11-21. The divine dispensation towards both parties exhibits 
both goodness and severity. Ifthe Gentile convert on whom God hath 
bestowed his bounty disregard it, he also shall be rejected; and the unbe- 
lieving Jew, if he turn to God in faith, shall again be admitted to fayour. 
This ts not only very possible, but it may reasonably be expected from 
God’s benevolence, and may be regarded as a procedure altogether 
natural: 22-25. It is important, in order to repress anything like arro- 
gance in Gentile Christians, that they should know and consider what may 
seem obscure in the divine procedure, namely, that the Israelites in part 
are permitted to be in a condition of spiritual blindness until the conver- 
sion of vast numbers from other nations. And this result shall be succeeded 
by their national conversion, as predicted in the Old Testament. For it 
must not be overlooked that, while, as respects the Gospel they are hostile 
to God and considered by him as enemies, and this condition of theirs has 
been overruled to promote the spiritual benefit of Gentiles; yet, as 
respects God’s original choice of the nation to be his peculiar people, they 
are still regarded with affection on account of the beloved ancestors, For 
God does not alter his plans of merey and kindness towards those whom 
he has blessed with their privileges. As Gentile believers were formerly 
in a condition of unbelief, but now have obtained the mercy of God in the 
Gospel through occasion of the Jews’ refusing it; so now the rejected Jews 
are in a state of unbelief, that the goodness shown to Gentiles may become 
the occasion of their future conversion and admission to the divine favour. 
Thus God’s plans evince his intention of extending mercy to all: 25-382. 
The Apostle then bursts out in an exclamation respecting God’s un- 
‘bounded wisdom and knowledge, and concludes with an ascription of 


glory. 33-36. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 17 





oa C PEG x TE. 


Cuar. XII.-XVI. 
THE PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE. 


Sr. Pau now proceeds with practical and hortatory directions. He urges 
his readers to devote themselves to God, to renounce the world, and to 
cultivate the various graces of the Christian life: xii. He inculcates 
obedience to the civil powers, xiii. 1-7, impresses the duty of love and 
conformity to Christ, reminding them that time is rapidly passing away, 
and eternity at hand: 8-14. He gives directions respecting usages and 
observances in themselves indifferent, and counsels those of various views 
and habits to regard each other kindly, and to yield the claim of judgment 
to God, to whom it rightfully belongs: xiv. 1-12. He warns against 
using one’s own liberty of conscience in such a way as may occasion sin 
in another, inculcating such a course of conduct as tends to harmony and 
kindness ; declaring that inward religion, and the peace and joy that accom- 
pany it, constitute the essential characteristic of the Gospel dispensation : 
13-23. He presents the example of Christ as a motive to seek the general 
good, and to bear with each other’s weaknesses: xv. 1-7. Christ was sent 
by God in confirmation of divine promises made to the early Hebrews, 
and also that the Gentiles might become the people of God amd glorify 
him. He speaks of his own commission, and of its successful prosecution 
among people who had not heard the Gospel before: 8-21. He states 
his intention to visit the Romans on his way to Spain; also his present 
purpose to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions which he had collected 
for the poor Christians there. He requests their prayers, and solicits for 
them the divine blessing: 22-383. 

Cuar. xvi. The Apostle now brings his letter to a close, by recommend- 
ing to the care of the Roman church a Christian sister, and by various kind 
salutations, cautioning against persons who promote dissensions in the 
church. He concludes, invoking for the Roman Christians the favour of 
Christ, and through him ascribing glory to God. 

2 











Ea d Peek ae Cae 
e a % hy — nh dine by ale Ruth 





oeyri alt 





1 tani anil 3 FALUN DAS 
gi AG Anataw Us nec afiaginis Cha | vi 
priat PW its 5 met a Oe Pare Sh) the doy Bing ce ais 
Wisi ‘Al obo Oe Bee Epi ght, 2 nits! OF 
A ine OE vit edie ha i pselt meee Ug y 


1 HN baad NTI Bad 
rN | MR a bh ne 
CLA. 
















one 


‘ 
; 











fe ak 
; 1a copay uy ay « ap i a f i. Ms , aes + oe Soke 
‘a ry Bey; tie ete: ard iy yi if ' ? seh Ct RE ea? wir ie fed ce a De 

ZR asR 5 Uh pips cxiaherbnl “Ain! ep toe cenrnde then oc a 
a geo ea © ver): Wa oe aiittet #18 dele Gyaend ed Sk bins ee 


y ’ 4 4° P¥G rigs is? . { ora Fak “aOR a! 








a. Pa St a 
hi fi is% } “wintibes'al 2 AR et 
Ce ‘ . = 
Ze ee ae &3 340i 
as " al a ’ 
J * é af ‘he 4 fo Sigh r i] 
A Aree | tie 
+, al ¥ 5 “ 
: k ie +e wf ‘ Pd F 
2 a sar 
, tat Og AG . fc gqs . ‘ i" ds Gl. pepe . a, iF 
 < a 4 . 
: .. 
Yl 


. eine, , Ky) apy t ; Bia At free viet? oe 


4 f a eT oe veils bead salshohecsvinld frac deed ; q 
tL ae oy wks Rien eget j Shy Bh Dy 
5 Blow. ii pir TY Baek Rik ie ae 
oe tt a , 4 Pest! a “i> 
ulti. bie L eae saa ened 
ihe itto wis 


’ os Dt . 
P y <4 
- * 


- 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 





SECTION I. 


Cuap. I. 1-15. 


INTRODUCTION. 


I. IavaAoc, dovAog Inoov Xpiorov, PAUL, a servant of Jesus Christ, I. 
KAnTOG atr60TOA0C, ddwptouévog called to be an apostle, separated 

2 ei¢ evayyédtov Yeov, 6 mpoe- unto the gospel of God, which 2 
myyeiAato Ola THY TpopnT@yv he had promised afore by his pro- 


Cuap. i. 1. “Separated:” As this is the meaning of the word, Pharisee, 
which is derived from 22, some writers have supposed that the Apostle 
alludes here to his former devotion to the Jewish law, while he expresses 
the thought that now he is separated for and devoted to the Gospel. This 
is not improbable, although quite uncertain, Olshausen rejects this 
“explanation as a mere play upon words.” He distinguishes between the 
calling and the separation of St. Paul, making the former refer to his 
appointment by Christ to the apostolic office, and the latter to the confir- 
mation of his original call “by the choice of the church at Antioch,” an 
account of which is given in Acts xiii. 2. The body “from which he was 
separated” is therefore, he says, not “to be regarded as the world, but as 
the Christian church itself to which he already belonged.” In the passage 
referred to the same word is indeed employed in reference to the appoint- 
ment of Paul and Barnabas, whom the Holy Ghost directs to be separated 
for him, But the particular work for which they were to be set apart is 
that which is narrated in detail in the remainder of the chapter and the 
following one, as is evident from xiv. 26, where they are said to have 
returned on accomplishing it. St. Paul’s divine call and appointment by 
Christ to the office of an Apostle required no external ecclesiastical sane- 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 





phets in the holy scriptures, con- 
cerning his Son Jesus Christ our 


¢ ~ ~ LZ 4 
abtod év ypadpaic dyiatc, trepi 
Tov viod abrov, Tod yevouévov 


[Secr. I. 





3 


Lord; which was made of the seed 
of David according to the flesh, 
4 and declared ¢o be the Son of God 
with power, according to the spirit 


éx oréppatoc Aavid kata odpka, 4 
Tov dpradévroc viod Beow ev dv- 
vader KaTa TrEvtpa dywwovvnc 


é& dvaordoewc vexpov, *Iyoov 


tion, any more than those of the original twelve. The several accounts of his 
conversion and call in the Acts,* fully prove what he says in Gal. i. 1, that 
he was “an Apostle not of men neither by man.” God’s purpose to set 
him apart to his service is expressed in the 15th verse of the same chapter, 
by the word here used; and this reference is much more directly to the 
point than that alleged by Olshausen. 

3, 4. “Concerning” may be connected with “Gospel” in ver. 1, or, 
which is perhaps better, with “promised” in ver. 2. In either case it is 
unnecessary to include, as some editors do, the second verse in a paren. 
thesis.—‘“ According to the flesh:” This expression relates to Christ’s 
human nature as subsisting during his earthly condition until his resurrec- 
tion, and consequently implies his state of humiliation, asin John i. 14.— 
“Declared :’’ Either, decreed, determined, destined (to be); or marked 
out, in the words of Chrysostom, shown, professed, manifested.t In the 
original edition of King James’ translation, the marginal reading is 
“determined.” But that of the text seems preferable.—It is not asserted 
that Christ became the Son of God in consequence of his resurrection, but 
only that his sonship was publicly announced by that event. Comp. Ps. ii. 
7, Acts xiii. 38.—*In power” may be used adverbially for powerfully, in 
reference to that almighty energy which effected the resurrection. But 
most probably the connection is with the immediately preceding words, 
“The Son of God in power” will then stand in contradistinction to “the 
Son of David according to the flesh.” This is the Rheims translation. 
Wiclif has “Sone of God in vertu,” the word being employed in the Latin 
sense. Compare the phrase “the sign (or proof) of the Son of Man in 
heaven,” in Matt. xxiv. 30. 

“Spirit of holiness.” Two leading interpretations of this phrase have 
been defended. First, it has been explained in the sense of the Holy 
Spirit, that is, in the ordinary meaning of the words, the third person of the 
Trinity. Adopting this view, Ammon in his Excursus appended to Koppe, 
p. 845, gives this as the sense: ‘ according to the predictions of the Holy 
Spirit in the Old Testament,’ regarding it as equivalent to, “according to the 
Scriptures” in 1 Cor. xv.3,4. Others, retaining the same meaning ofthe phrase, 


* For these accounts and allusions to them, see Acts ix. 5, 6, 15, 17, 20, xx, 24, xxii. 14, 15, xxvi, 
16, 19, 20, Gal. i. 1, 12, 16, fi. 6, 7, 9, 1 Tim. 1. 12. 
+ Hom. I. on Rom., Opera, Edit. Bened. Venet. 1741, Tom, ix. p. 482. 


Cu, I. 8-5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 21 





5 Xptorovd Tov Kvptov juay, dv od of holiness, by the resurrection 
EAdBouev yaplv Kai dtooToAjy from the dead; by whom we have 5 
elc trakony Thotewo év Taot received grace and apostleship, for 
toic E9veowy bTrEp TOU dvouatoc obedience to the faith among all 





understand kar@ in the sense of dtd, by, and explain thus: ‘by the Holy 
Spirit in his miraculous operations after Christ’s resurrection.’ With 
this exposition, compare John xvi. 14, and Acts ii. 33. Thus Rosenmueller 
in his Scholia, and more fully in a dissertation published in the Commen- 
tationes Theologice, vol. i. pp. 315 et seq.* But this interpretation, 
although it makes a clear and good meaning, is without any support from 
New Testament usage. The phrase “ spirit of holiness” is indeed a literal 
translation of the Hebrew for Holy Spirit, but it is never once used in this 
sense in the New Testament, the expression always being mvetvja dytov 
with or without the article; and no reason can be assigned why St. Paul 
should in this passage depart from the invariable usage. Besides, it loses 
sight of the evident antithesis between “according to the flesh” and 
“according to the spirit of holiness.” 
The second leading interpretation considers the two words as expres- 
sive of dignity, majesty, glory. Spirit and spiritual are often employed 
to denote what is excellent, perfect, holy, extraordinary and divine, (see 1 
Cor. x. 3, 4, xv. 44-46, Gal. iv. 29,) and holiness, d@ytwobv7, occurs in the 
Septuagint as the translation of the Hebrew for majesty, splendour, glory. 
See Ps. exliv., Sept. (cxlv., Heb.) 5, xev. (xevi.) 6. In Heb. ix. 14, where 
see the note, pp. 125, 124, spirit appears to be used in the same sense as 
in this place, and to denote Christ’s divine condition as glorified Messiah, 
his elevated state in the exercise of his original divine attributes, and as 
man, of lordship over the universe. So perhaps in 1 Tim. iii. 16: “ Was 
manifest in the flesh,” that is, in human nature, “justified in the spirit,” 
shown to be approved of and honoured by God in his gloriously exalted 
and divine condition. Comp. John xvii. 5, Matt. xxviii. 18, and Heb. ii. 9. 
’Eé is used in the sense of from, after. See Matt. xix. 20, and 2 Pet. ii. 8. 
The Greek is elliptical, and the preposition €* must be supplied before 
vexe@v as before pov in Actsi.5. The meaning of the whole may be 
thus expressed : ‘a descendant of David, as to his condition of humiliation 
while in human nature on earth, (but) proclaimed the Son of God in power, 
as to his divine nature in connection with his glorified humanity, from the 
time of his resurrection.’ . 
5. “Grace and Apostleship :” These words may express the two ideas 
* This is a valuable collection of Dissertations exegetical and theological, edited by Velthusen, 
Kuinoel and Ruperti. It comprises six octavo volumes, and was published at Leipsic in 1794-1799. 
A Supplement by Pott and Ruperti appeared at Helmstadt, entitled Sylloge Commentationum Theo- 


logicarum, in eight volumes, in 1800-1807. Horne’s Introduction, yol, ii. part ii, Appendix, p. 286, 
sixth edition, Lond. 1828, 


22 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. 1. 
6 nations, for his name, among avrov, év olc gore Kai vyeig 6 
whom are ye also the called of «Anrol Inoov Xpiorov, taotToig 7 

7 Jesus Christ: to all that be in ovdow év 'P&yn dyarntoic Jeod, 
Rome, beloved of God, called to be KAnrotc dyiowe* xapic vuiv Kal 
saints; grace to you, and peace, elpfvy dxd Yeod maTpdc 7uav 
from God our father, and the Lord kai xupiov ’Inaod Xprorov. 

8 Jesus Christ. First, I thank my IIp@rov pév ebyapioTo TO 8 
God through Jesus Christ for you eq prov did "Inaod Xprorov brép 
all, that your faith is spoken of mévtwv tjpuov, drt 4) miotUG buov 

9 throughout the whole world. For KxatayyéAAerat év dAw7@ Koop. 


Mdprve yap pov gotiv 6 Bebc, 9 
© Aatpebw ev TO TvEedpati pov 
év T@ evayyediw Tov viod adrod, 
O¢ ddtaheint oc velav DUGV TOL- 
ovwar, mdvrote ent TOY Tpod- 10 
evyOv pov dedmevoc, eimw¢ 70n 


God is my witness, whom I serve 
with my spirit in the gospel of his 
Son, that without ceasing I make 
mention of you always in my 
10 prayers; making request, if by any 

means now at length I might have 


- 


of the Gospel favour in general and that of the Apostolate in particular, or 
they may be a hendiadys, meaning, the favour of the Apostleship. Compare 
the word grace in Gal. ii. 9.—“* Obedience to the faith :” literally, ‘ obedience 
of faith.’ The latter word may be understood either objectively or subject- 
ively, and the meaning be, ‘ obedience to the faith, that is, the Gospel, or, 
‘ obedience which springs from faith ;’ or it may be taken adjectively, and 
the translation be, ‘ faithful obedience.’—“ For his name :” meaning ‘ on 
account of his honour.’ 

6. “The Called :” The word is used to denote those who have been 
invited to receive the benefits of the Gospel, and also those who have 
accepted them. Here and frequently elsewhere it means the latter. See 
1 Cor. i, 24; also vii. 17, 18, 21, where the verb also expresses the same 
It is God who is uniformly represented as calling men to 


meaning. 
the Gospel. See the texts referred to in the latter part of the note on 
Heb. iii. 1. “The called of Jesus Christ” are they who, by embracing 


his religion, belong to him as their Lord and benefactor. 

7. The latter clause of the verse might be translated, ‘ father of us and 
of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ But this would not be in harmony with other 
passages. The meaning is, “from God our father, and (from) the Lord 
Jesus Christ ;” and this remark applies to St. Paul’s epistles generally. 
See particularly the introductions to second Timothy, where the 7ju@v is 
omitted, and to Titus, where its position is different, and compare also all 
those texts which speak of the peace or grace of Christ. The author evi- 
dently represents grace as coming both from God and from Christ. 

9. “ With my spirit:” That is, with my whole heart, sincerely and 
ardently. See Eph. vi. 6. 

10. “If,” &c.: ‘that by God’s goodness I may at length be so highly 


Cu. I. 6-15.) 





more evodwdjoowat &v TH VEAr- 
wate Tod BEod Avery TPOG bpas. 
11 ’Exurod@ yao idetv bude, iva Te 
perade xapiopa bpiv TVEUpG- 
tuKov ele TO oTNpLXYI Val buac, 
12 rovro dé ort, ovuTrapakAndzvat 
év buiv Oa Tig &v dAAHAOC Ti- 
13 orewc, buoy Te Kat éuod. OV 
VEAw dé bude dyvosiv, ddeApol, 
Ore TOAAGKIC TpoEdEUNY EADETY 
mpoc tuac, Kat EKWACSHY aypt 
Tov devpo, iva TIVd KapTOY OKO 
kal év tiv, Kada¢g Kat év ToIC 
14 Aouroic E9veowv. “EAAgoti Te Kal 
BapBdpotc, codoic Te Kat avor- 
15 toe derdétncg elui> obtw TO 
kat’ éué Tpodvuoy Kal buty ToLC 
év ‘POun evayyedioacdat. 


favoured as to visit you.’ 
meaning. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 23 


a prosperous journey by the will of 
God to come unto you. For I long 11 
to see you, that I may impart unto 
you some spiritual gift, to the end 
ye may be established: that is, 12 
that I may be comforted together 
with you by the mutual faith both 
of youand me. Now I would not 13 
have you ignorant, brethren, that 
oftentimes I purposed to come unto 
you, (but was let hitherto,) that I 
might have some fruit among you 
also, even as among other Gentiles. 
IT am debtor both to the Greeks and 14 
to the Barbarians, both to the wise 
and to the unwise. So, as muchas 15 
in me is, I am ready to preach the 
gospel to you that are at Rome also. 


In 2 Mac. x. 7, the Greek word has the same 


11. Xdpiowa means any spiritual gift, whether ondinaty or miraculous. 
See 1 Cor. vii. 7, Rom. xii. 6 et seq., 1 Cor. xii. 4,9, 
12, 18. “That is:” This is equivalent to, Tne The Apostle does, 


as it were, correct what he had said. 


Instead: of Alwelling on the thought 


of obliging the Roman Christians by imparting: ‘to them some benefit, he 
speaks as if his visit would become the occasion through their mutual 
faith of comforting and strengthening each other. And so in the next 
verse he represents his connection with them and other converts as the 
means of benefit to himself: “That I may, kave some fruit;” that is, de- 
This is the proper meaning of kaptrov Every. See vi. 21, 
The sentiment also said 


rive advantage. 
and compare puodov éyete in Matt. v. 46, vi. 1. 
the modesty of St. Paul’s character, and is entirely in harmony with that 
in the following verse. 

14, 15. Strictly speaking, the Apostle was indebted to God, and hence 
he feels and expresses his obligation to benefit God’s creatures ; and ob, so, 
under the influence of this consciousness, he is ready, to the utmost of his 
power, to preach the Gospel even in Rome where he would, most proba- 
bly, be subjected to the severest persecution. The Greek may be pointed 
with a comma after ovtw, and another after éué, according to Griesbach 
and other editors, and the meaning be as just given; or both commas 
may be omitted, as in Hahn, and the whole clause expressed thus, ‘if is 
my earnest desire.’ In both cases éort will be understood. 


24 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. 11 


SECTION II. 


Cuap. I, 16-82. 


THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE PORTION OF THE EPISTLE 
STATED, WITH A VIEW OF THE MORAL CONDITION OF THE HEATHEN 
WORLD, 


16 For I am not ashamed of the Ov yao éra:oybvomuat 70 ebay- 16 
gospel of Christ: for itis the power yéAov: dbvamuc yap Yeov éotw 
of God unto salvation, to everyone &l¢ owrnpiay TavtTi TO TLOTED- 
that believeth ; to the Jew first, and ov7t, “lovdaiw te mpOtov Kal 


16. Here St. Paul enters on the argument of his Epistle, introducing 
it with this declaration. The full meaning of the words “I am not ashamed 
of” is contained in the parallel phrase of Gal. vi. 14, “ God forbid that 
I should glory save in.” The reasons follow. The Gospel is God’s mighty 
instrument; it is intended to effect man’s salvation; it grants this blessing 
on the condition of faith which is readily attainable; and its offers are 
unlimited, extending to all the human family.—* Power of God,” like 
“salvation” for Saviour in Luke ii. 30, is the abstract for the concrete, 
meaning God’s efficient means, Comp. 1 Cor. i, 24. “Every one that 
believeth” implies the necessary condition, faith in contradistinction to 
works whether moral or ritual, and also the comprehensiveness of the offer ; 
although, according to the divine scheme, it was first made to the Jews, 
and their rejection of it became the occasion of its being extended to the 
Gentiles. The word Greek, both here and in several other places, is used 
in this enlarged meaning. 

17. The reader who desires to see the various meanings which have 
been given to the phrase “righteousness of God” here, must consult the 
commentators. It evidently does not mean his justice, nor probably his 
kindness or any other attribute. The general sense of the word in this 
Epistle when connected with the author’s argument or statements allied 
therewith, is justification, that is, pardoning, acquitting ; or, state or method 
of justification. The last agrees best with the context in this place. It 
has been said to be a “ comparatively unusual meaning,” and not to “suit 
the opposition between ‘our own righteousness’ and ‘ the righteousness of 
God’ as the former of these phrases cannot well mean ‘our own method 
of justification.’ It is opposed also to the explanation of the Apostle fur- 
nished by the expression, ‘the righteousness which is of God, by faith,’ 


Cu. I. 16, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 28 


17 “EAAnve. Atkatoobyvn yde Yeov also to the Greek. For therein isthe 17 
év abt@ adrokaddntetat ék Ti- righteousness of God revealed from 
arews sig TioTwv, KaddG yéypa- faith to faith; as it is written, 
mrat* 6 0& dikatocg Ex Tiotewo The just shall live by faith. 

Cfoerae. 


Phil. iii. 9, which cannot, in that passage, mean ‘ God’s method of justifica- 
tion.’”’** To these remarks, which are unaccompanied by any evidence, I 
can only say that they appear to me incapable of proof. Justification, 
which is a proper meaning of the word, is probably used for the method of 
justification, and this idea will be conveyed by a literal translation: ‘God’s 
justification is revealed in it,’ naturally suggests the thought, that his method 
of justification is made known in the Gospel; and this is the fact. “De ~ 
modo et ratione explicandum esse videtur, quibus venia impetrari queat.” 
Ammon in Koppe, p. 16. “ Ratio favoris divint consequendi per metonym.” 
Wahl, Clavis Novi Testamenti sub voce, 5. 

“From faith to faith.” I must again refer the reader, who wishes to 
see the various views which have been given of this phrase, to the com- 
mentators. I will state one or two, and then what seems to me the best 
exposition. Some connect “from faith” with the clause just explained, 
and read, ‘the righteousness of God from (or by) faith.’ Comp. iii. 30. 
The next two words are understood either in the sense of ‘to produce 
faith,’ or faith is supposed to be put for ‘the faithful ;’ that is, the abstract 
for the concrete, as in Heb. x. 39 in the Greek. The meaning thus 
obtained is as follows: ‘ The righteousness of God by faith is revealed in 
the Gospel in order to produce faith ;’ or, ‘in reference to and for the bene- 
fit of the faithful.’ Macknight says of the former “translation,” that it 
“results from construing the words properly,” and that it “affords a clear 
sense of a passage which, in the common translation, is absolutely unintel- 
ligible.” It is sufficient to remark that such is his opinion. But, in respect 
to the last view, it may be said to be wholly improbable that the same 
word, in so very intimate a connection, should be used in such different 
senses; and, in respect to both, that the separation of the former half of 
the clause from the latter and the connecting of it with the first phrase of 
the verse, is most unnatural. Professor Stuart endeavors to show the con- 
trary ; but, I think, without success. Every candid reader must feel, that 
“from faith to faith” is a phrase which cannot be divided. But the Pro- 
fessor asks, “ What can the meaning be of revealed from faith ?” The in- 
sertion of the common ellipsis of ¢o be after the verb affords a very ready 
answer. “From faith to faith” means ‘from a faith which continues to 
influence its possessor, and which, being in itself a vital principle, grows 


* Hodge, p. 41. 


26 COMMENTARY ON THE (Szer. I, 


18 For the wrath of God is revealed *"AroKxaAirrerar yap dpy? 18 
from heaven against all ungodliness, Yeo0v dz’ obpavod éxi nacav doé- 
and unrighteousness of men, who etav kai ddixiay dvdporwyr, 
hold the truth in unrighteousness; T@v T/)v dAjdevav év ddicia Kat- 


and increases.’ The same respected author, in considering what has been 
adduced as an analogous phrase, “ to iniquity unto iniquity,” Rom. vi. 19, 
remarks, that “in all such cases, the accusative denotes the end or object 
to which the thing that had just been named tends,” and quotes as proof 
2 Cor. ii. 16: “Savour of death unto death, of life unto life.” But the re- 
mark is not applicable to other similar phrases, such as, “from glory to 
glory—from strength to strength,” 2 Cor. iii. 18, Ps. Ixxxiv. 7, which evi- 
dently expresses the idea of increase. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 17, in the Greek, 
whith is but inadequately rendered in our Bibles “a far more exceeding.” 
The Apostle’s meaning of the clause under consideration appears to be 
this: ‘In the Gospel God’s method of justification is revealed (to be) from 
a living faith which perpetuates itself and increases by virtue of its essen- 
tial character.’ And I think that the sense of the quotation which follows 
confirms this interpretation. It is from Hab. ii. 4, and is cited also in 
Heb, x. 38. The prophet is speaking of the truly religious man’s steady 
faith in God under apprehended calamity. He lives in a calm and happy 
state of acceptance and favour with God by the uniform exercise of a reli- 
gious confidence. Thus his faith is the same as that which the Apostle 
represents as justifying. 

18. “ For:” This may be illative of the implied thought, that some such 
scheme of justification as the Gospel reveals is necessary for all men; or, 
the full development which the Gospel makes of God’s anger against sin 
may be stated as another reason for the author’s glorying in it. Comp. 
Acts xvii. 30.—* From heaven” probably qualifies “revealed,” to which 
it appears to be added as indicating the divine source of the revelation.— 
“Who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” The truth here intended cannot 
be that which is peculiar to Christianity, as is evident from the following 
verses, It means religious truth in general, such as mankind possessed in 
an early period, the influence of which they weakened, and much of which 
they lost, by inconsistent and wicked lives. The word rendered “hold” 
often means to suppress, restrain, and many commentators so understand 
it here. Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva translation, all have 
withold ; the Rheims “deteine.” But the other sense agrees better with 
the subsequent context, which speaks of the divine attributes as being 
“known,” and of the Heathen world as “knowing God” and yet dis- 
honouring him. Still, it must be granted that this meaning is quite defen- 
sible, as the general religious truth held by the Heathen was perverted and 
darkened by their sinful conduct. 


Cn. I. 18-21.] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


27 





19 eyévtTwv: di6Tt TO yvwordy Tov 
Seod davepov eoriv év advroic* 
6 Sede yao adroic éhavépwoe. 
20 Ta yde dépata adrTov ano KTi- 
GEWC KOOMOV TOILE TOLHWACL VOOU- 
preva Kadoparat, 7] TE aidvog av- 
Tov dbvapuc Kai Yevdryc, Eig TO 
21 eivat adtov¢ dvaToAoyhrove: Ot- 
6tt yvovtes TOV Yedv oby oC 
Sedov &ddsacav 7} nvyapiornsar, 
GAN Euatawdnoav Ev Toi¢ dta- 


because that which may be known 19 
of God is manifest in them; for 
God hath shewed ¢¢ unto them. For 20 
the invisible things of him from 
the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eter- 
nal power and Godhead; so that 
they are without excuse. Because 21 
that, when they knew God, they 
glorified him not as God, neither 


were thankful, but became vain in 
their imaginations, and their fool- 


Aoytopot¢g avTwv, Kat EsxoTiody 
22 1) dobverog avt@v Kapdia. d- 


19. “That which may be known :” The original is one word, with its 
article, and equivalent to ‘the knowledge.’ Similar forms may be found 
in the Greek of ii. 4, viii. 3, 1 Cor. i. 25, where the English translation has 
“ goodness—which (the law) could not do—the foolishness and weakness.” — 
“God hath showed :” either by an original revelation, or by the works of 
creation influencing the rational and religious faculties. 

20. “The invisible things of him :” That is, his attributes and nature, as 
the latter part of the verse declares.—* From the creation of the world :” 
Either, by means of the created objects; or, most probably, from the very 
time the world was made. The Greek bears either sense, but the former 
makes the phrase, “ the things that are made,” a useless repetition. The 
general meaning of the verse is, that the works of creation have always 
been to such a rational and moral creature as man a sufficiently practical 
exponent of God’s nature and attributes. ‘wo particulars, however, ought 
to be considered in relation to this subject: first, that the Apostle is not 
speaking of a full degree of religious knowledge ; and, secondly, that the 
influence on the human mind of man’s original condition as stated in the 
book of Genesis and of any primitive revelation of which he may have been 
the subject, must be allowed their due weight. What such a creature as 
man, in his present state, might be able to ascertain by the exercise simply 
of his own reasoning on the works of nature, had he no other direct or indi- 
rect sources of information, is a very different question, and one which the 
Apostle’s language does not take into consideration. A spurious philoso- 
phy assumes a certain conceivable condition of primitive human nature; 
but all well ascertained facts support the faith which maintains such assump- 
tions to be groundless, 

21. “ When they knew:” That is, having enjoyed abundant means of 

Compare “seeing and hearing” in Matt. xiii. 13.—“ Heart,” 
This word is often used by the Hebrews to denote the mind; 


knowing. 
kapoia. 


28 


22 ish heart was darkened. Profess- 
ing themselves to be wise, they 
23 became fools, and changed the 
glory of the uncorruptible God 
into an image made like to corrup- 
tible man, and to birds, and four- 
footed beasts, and creeping things. 
24 Wherefore God also gave them up 
to uncleanness through the lusts of 
their own hearts, to dishonour their 
own bodies between themselves : 
25 who changed the truth of God in- 
toa lie, and worshipped and served 
the creature more than the Creator, 
who is blessed for ever: Amen. 
26 For this cause God gave them up 
unto vile affections: for even their 
women did change their natural 
use into that which is against 
27 nature; and likewise also the 
men, leaving the natural use of 
the woman, burned in their lust 
one toward another, men with men 
working that which is unseemly, 
and receiving in themselves that 


but often also, as here, with a direct reference to the affections. 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE (Seer. II. 
oKovTec elvat oopol éuwpavdn- 
oav, kai 7jAAagav Tijv ddgav TOD 23 
ddddprov Yeod év bpuowpare 
elxdvog @8aptod dvdparov Kai 
TeTeLv@v Kal TeTpaTtédwy Kal 
épmeTav. Ato Kai mapédwnev 24 
avrov¢c 6 Bedc ev taic émudv- 
piatc TOV Kapdiav adt@y el¢ 
dxadapotay, Tow Utydseodat Ta 
oopata abtav év éavtoic. Ol- 25 
Tevec peTnAAagav tiv dAgpdevav 
Tov Yeod vy TO wedder Kai éoe- 
BdoSnoav Kai éAdrpevoav TH 
Ktiogt Tapa TOV KTioavTa, O¢ 
éotiv evAoynroc el¢ Tove aldvag ° 
dujv. Ata rovto rapédwxev 26 
avrove 6 Yede ei¢ TAYN atiuiag: 
ai re yao Sider avTo@v peTiA- 
Aakav tijv pvowciy xpjow ele 
THY Tapa dobow: dwoiwe Te Kai 27 
ot dppevec adévrec tiv pvorKiy 
xpro Tie YnAeiac &exadvdnoav 
év TH dpéser aba ele dAAtAove, 
dpoevec év dpoeot Tijv doynuo- 
obvnv Katepyasouevor Kai TIV 


Thus we 


read; “ With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” or rather, justifi- 
cation, Rom. x. 10; that is, justifying faith must be cordial, and have its 
due influence both on the understanding and on the affections. 

22, 23. “They became fools: This may comprehend a declarative 


meaning; they both showed and increased their folly. 


The absurd and 


ridiculous idolatry into which they were permitted to fall abundantly veri- 


fies the statement in both respects. 


24-31. The Apostle now proceeds to describe the moral condition 


of the Heathen world. The corrupt and debasing vices into which men 
were allowed to fall, were in part a judicial punishment, and in part a 
natural consequence, of the degrading idolatry. The correctness of this 
description of the abandoned and wicked state of the Heathen, has been 
confirmed by various writers. Whitby and Leland, in their respective 
works on the advantages and necessity of a divine revelation, abound with 
evidence and illustration ; and Paganism asit now exists verifies the inspired 
statement, and shows that such results are the invariable concomitants of 
stupid ignorance and idolatry. It is to be observed, however, that this 


Cu. I. 22-31.) 


3 4 hay ” ~ 4 

advruucdiav, nv &det, THC TWAGY 
eh 2 PoC TT 
avtav év éavtoic¢ drodapa- 
28 vovtec. Kat xadoc ov edoxi- 
pacav Tov Sedv eyerv ev Extyvo- 
cet, Tapédwxev adtodv¢o 6 Sedc 
ele ddbKIjLOVv VOdY, TOLELY TA [L7) 
29 kgdjKovra, TeTANDWLeVOvE Ta- 
on adikia, Topveta, Tovnpta, TAE- 

4 4 ‘ 7 

ovegia, Kakia, eatovc Pddvov, 

4 . 4 oa 4 
dovov, Eptdoc, ddAov, Kaxonetac, 
30 yuduptotdc, KataAdidovc, Beo- 
orvyeic, bBpotde, drepnpavove, 
adAacovac, épevpeTae KAKOY, yo- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


29 
recompence of their error which was 
meet. And even as they did not 28 
like to retain God in their know- 
ledge, God gave them over to a 
reprobate mind, to do those things 
which are not convenient; being 29 
filled with all unrighteousness, 
fornication, wickedness, covetous- 
ness, maliciousness; full of envy, 
murder, debate, deceit, malignity ; 
whisperers, backbiters, haters of 30 
God, despiteful, proud, boasters, in- 
ventors of evil things, disobedient 


~ 3 ~ > 7 3 
31 vevowv atevSeic, dovVvETOUC, dOVV- 
Sétove, dotépyovc, daozébvdove, 


to parents, without understand- 31 
ing, covenant-breakers, without 
description of the heathen is intended to apply to them as a body, and not 
to every individual. The same remark applies to the subsequent descrip- 
tion of the state of the Jews, in the second and third chapters. This is in 
harmony with the general course of representation which pervades the 
argumentative parts of this Epistle. 

“Truth of God :” Equivalent to, the true God. Compare the phrase, 
“slory of God,” in verse 23, and also in Ps. evi. 20, which the Apostle 
evidently has in view. “ Lie,” which is antithetic to “the truth,” is the 
abstract for the concrete, and put for an idol, implying the vain and deceit- 
ful character of idolatry. Tholuck very appositely quotes similar language 
from Philo, who, referring to the idolatrous calf made by the Hebrews in 
the desert, says that “ Moses was amazed at their substituting so great a 
lie, weddoc, in the place of so great a truth, dAn8etac.” 

’Ad6kuwov, towards the end of the 28th verse, refers to édoxiwacay, at 
the beginning : ‘ As they did not think fit, approve of, God abandoned them 
to a state of mind not to be approved of, to be condemned, reprobate.’— 
"Eye év émvyvocet, for émvy.vockery, is literally, to have in knowledge, 
and means, to recognise and properly regard.” "Eyevy, with the noun and 
preposition, is often used in this way for the verb. See 1 Tim. iii. 4. The same 
is true of yivomas. 
equivalent to transgressed.—OeoorTvyetc¢ in verse 30, may be rendered 
either ‘ hateful to God,’ or “haters of God.” Wiclif has the former, and 
the Rheims “ odible to God,” the word being borrowed from the Vulgate, 
Deo odibiles. Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and King James’ transla- 
tions, have the latter. As all the other epithets relate to the character 
and properties of the persons described, the latter rendering is preferable. 
The natural “ enmity” referred to is explained in viii. 7, to be a hostility 
to the law of God.—'YBprorde: insolent and injurious persons.—“ Inventors 


See 1 Tim. ii. 14, where “was in the transgression” is 


80 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. 11. 





natural affection, implacable, un- dveAefuovac: oltiveg 70 dtKai- 32 

32 merciful: who, knowing the pa Tov Yeod émvyvévtec, drt ob 
judgment of God, that they which 7d Tovatira mpdooovrec agsvot Ba- 
commit such things are worthy of vdrov eloiv, od pévov adtd Tot- 
death, not only do the same, but ovovv, dAAd Kai ovvevdoKovat 
have pleasure in themthatdo them. Tol¢ mpdocovot. 


of evil things :”” In 2 Mae, vii. 31, Antiochus is called “the author, or dis- 
coverer, or inventor, evperfe, of all mischief against the Hebrews.” Vir- 
gil calls Ulysses, scelerum inventor. En. ii. 164. 

32. Wiclif and the Rheims translator, following the Vulgate and a few 
Greek authorities, introduce the negative, “undirstoden not” or “ did 
not understand,” immediately after the word “God.” Locke sanctions 
the same interpolation. But the external suppors of such a reading is not 
of much weight, and the sense resulting is at variance with the scope of 
the Apostle.’ He evidently appeals to the natural moral sense of mankind, 
as enabling them to recognise God’s law in a degree sufficient to become 
to them a rule of action. Comp. verse 19-21.—The last clause of this verse 
is a climax. It describes the evil habit of the mind. The persons described 
not only commit iniquities, but enjoy a malignant satisfaction in so doing, 
and in associating with their wicked companions, 


SECTION ITI. 


Cuapr, II. 


THE INCONSISTENCY OF JEWS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF GENTILES, AND 
THEIR FOLLY IN TRUSTING TO EXTERNAL PRIVILEGES. 


Aa ” 


II. Therefore, thou art inexcus- Awd dvatoAbynto¢ el, © av- II. 
able, O man, whosoever thou art Opwr7e tac 6 kpivwv: év © yao 
that judgest: for wherein thou «piveic tov Erepov, ceavTdv Ka- 


judgest another, thou condemnest Taxpiverc: td yde adbTd mpao- 


Cuap. ii. 1-11. “Therefore:” This is not a mere particle of transition. St. 
Paul has convicted the Heathen of gross immorality, and consequently has 
proved that, on the ground of moral obedience, they can have no claim to 
God’s favour, and must look for acceptance or justification to some other 
dependence. He is now about to prove that the situation of the Jews 
does not in this respect differ at all from that of the Gentiles. This is the 
ultimate design of his argument. Inasmuch, however, as the Jew, although 





Cu. I. 82.—II. 6.] EPISTLE TO‘ THE ROMANS. 81 

2 oeic 6 Kpivov. Oldapyev dé, drt thyself; for thou that judgest, 
Td. Kpiwa Tov Yeod éott Kata doest the same things. But we are 2 
dAnvseray ext Tove Ta ToOLlavTa sure that the judgment of God is 

8 medooovrac. Aoyity dé TodTO, according to truth, against them 
© avdpwre 6 Kpivwv tod¢ Ta which commit such things. And 38 
TolavTa Tpdooovtac Kal Tol@Y thinkest thou this, O man, that 
avtd, Ott od éxpedén TO Kptwa  judgest them which do such things, 

4 tov Yeov ; “H Tov rAodTov Tij¢ and doest the same, that thou shalt 
xpnotéTnto¢g avTov Kai TIC avo- escape the judgment of God? Or 4 
Ig Kat THC waKpoSvptac KaTa- despisest thou the riches of his 
dpoveic, dyvowv, drt TO YpyoTOY goodness and forbearance and long- 
tov Yeov ele petadvoldy oe dyet; suffering, not knowing that the 

5 Kara d& tiv oxAnpétntd cov goodness of God leadeth thee to 
kat dueravontoy Kapdiav Snoav- repentance? But, after thy hard- 5 


pigere ceavTt® dpyiy év ijpépa 
épyi¢g Kat droKadiwews dtKato- 
Kptotacg Tov Yeov, b¢ drrodwcet 
éxdoTw KaTa Ta épya avTov: 


ness and impenitent heart, treasur- 
est up unto thyself wrath, against 
the day of wrath and revelation 
of the righteous judgment of God; 


who will render to every man ac- 6 


committing similar offences, did not scruple to criminate the Gentile, the 
immediate object of the Apostle here is to show him the inconsistency and 
culpability of his conduct, Thus we see the proper illative force of “ there- 
fore.” It applies, as other similar illative particles occasionally do, to the 
latter part of the verse. Compare “ therefore” in John vii. 22, and 2 Tim. ii. 
10, which most probably qualifies the words that follow. The author’s idea 
may be expressed thus: ‘Since those who commit such crimes are worthy 
of punishment, thou, O Jew, art therefore inexcusable, because thou art 
guilty of the very same things as those Gentiles, whom thou art continually 
condemning.’ The antithesis lies between “them that do them,” in i. 32, 
and “doest the same,” here. This is confirmed by the words in the next 
verse, “against them that commit such things,” and those in the following, 
“and doest the same.” Undoubtedly the censorious disposition and con- 
duct of the Jews are meant to be denounced, but the chief point of the 
remark is, the gross inconsistency of judging and condemning Gentiles for 
the same sort of practices and vices in which Jews themselves indulged. 
No doubt the remark is of general application to all inconsistent men ; 
but it is clear, from the context and the subsequent part of the chapter, 
that the Jews are particularly referred to. 

“Judge” is here used in the sense of censuring, condemning, as in 
Matt. vii. 1, 2, and John vii. 51.—“ We know:” It must be admitted by 
all.— According to truth:” that is, equitable and right. Comp. Acts x. 
34.— Riches of his goodness :” Equivalent to his ‘abundant goodness.’ 
See ix. 23 and Eph. i. '7, ‘his abundant and excellent glory’ or ‘grace,’ 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. III. 





7 cording to Ins deeds: to them 
who by patient continuance in well 
doing, seek for glory and honour 

8 and immortality, eternal life; but 
unto them that are contentious, and 
do not obey the truth, but obey 
unrighteousness, indignation and 

9 wrath, tribulation and anguish, 
upon every soul of man that doeth 
evil, of the Jew first, and also of 

10 the Gentile; but glory, honour, 
and peace, to every man that work- 
eth good, to the Jew first, and also 


Toic pev Kad’ dbronoviy epyov 7 
dyadov dégav Kal tyjv Kal 
dpdapoiav ¢nrovar Cwijv ald- 
viov: toic dé && épideiac nal 8 
dmewovor pev Ti dAndeia, Tet- 
Sowévore dé TH ddiKiay dpy? Kal 
Supoc VAirue Kat orevoywpia 9 
énl Taoav pvyjv dvdparov Tov 
katepyacouévov 70 Kakév, *Iov- 
daiov te mp@Tov Kal "EAAnvoc * 
ddga dé Kat ty Kai elphvn 10 
Travri T@ épyagouéva TO ayador, 
lovdaiw te mp@Tov Kai "EAA. 


Ov ydo ort TpoowroAn pia Tapa 11 
TH) VEO. "“Ooot ydo dvopuwe 12 
qwaptov, advouwe Kai axodovv- 
Tat* Kal doo év vouw FpapTor, 
did vbuov Kpidjoovrat, (ob yap 13 
oi dkpoatai Tov vouov dikatot 


11 to the Gentile: for there is no 
12 respect of persons with God. For 
as many as have sinned without 
law, shall also perish without law ; 
and as many as have sinned in the 
law, shall be judged by the law; 
13 (For not the hearers of the law are 


and compare “ multitude of thy mercy” in Ps. v. 7.—Ayvo@v: either, 
“not knowing,” and then the ignorance will be voluntary arising from 
sinful neglect and consequently criminal ; or, not considering. The latter 
seems to be a legitimate meaning, as verbs expressive of knowledge are 
also employed to denote attention. Compare the use of ovvévto¢ in 
Matt. xiii. 19, of qdevv in Acts xxiii. 5, of obvec¢ in Ps. v. 2, and of éyve 
in Hos, ii. 8, Sept. See also Srey in the Iliad, i. 273. The same remark 
applies to the verb to hear, which often means to attend to, understand. 
See Matt. x. 14 and 1 Cor. xiv. 2.— Leadeth :” that is, such are its cha- 
racter and tendency.— Treasureth up :” The original idea of a treasure is 
here entirely lost, and the word means nothing more than heap up or 
prepare abundantly.—* Contentious :” literally, ‘of contention,’ like, “they 
that are of faith” in Gal. iii. 7, for ‘the faithful.—‘ Peace” in ver. 10 is 
used in the Hebrew sense of blessing. 

12-16. “For :” As usual this particle is illative. It sustains the imme- 
diately preceding remark. ‘There is no respect of persons with God, for 
he judges and punishes men according to the degree of their respective 
privileges and opportunities of religious improvement.’ The cases of 
Gentile and of Jewish sinners, who subject themselves to condemnation, 
shall each be decided on this consideration. Comp. Luke xii. 47,48. In 
the final decision, the obligation of the Israelites to obey the law under 
which they lived shall have its due influence, as shall also that of the 
Heathen to obey the law of nature suggested by conscience and reason or 


Cu. Il. 7-14.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 83 


Tapa TH VEO, GAA’ of ronTal TOU just before God, but the doers of 
14 vouov dikawdjoovra. “Otay the law shall be justified. For 14 
yao &vn Ta fu) vouov éyovta when the Gentiles, which have not 


traditionary revelation. In a word, the state of each man shall be deter- 
mined with reference to his situation and advantages. The word “ sinned” 
is here used emphatically. In the language of Ernesti, there is “ an acces- 
sion of meaning to its ordinary signification.” It means so sinned as to 
subject themselves to condemnation, sinned without repenting, or persisted 
in sinning. The phrase “him that worketh not” in iv. 5 means, ‘who doth 
not work with a view to obtain justification thereby.’ Such emphatic 
senses are readily perceived by a due attention to the context. The 
meaning of “ without law,” and “in the law,” may be ascertained by 
referring to 1 Cor. ix. 20,21. They express the condition of Gentile and 
Jew. 

\Y The Apostle has just said that a neglect to live religiously according to 
the condition in which we are placed, will subject us to merited punishment. 
What follows is intended to confirm this statement, and therefore is intro- 
duced by the illative, “for.”’ This isa clew to the meaning of the next 
verses, which do not refer to the ground of justification, but simply assert 
the inefficacy of hearing and knowing God’s law, and the necessity of sin- 
cere obedience to secure acceptance. It is not justification properly speaking 
but sanctification which is the subject of the’verse, the whole idea of which 
is contained in Hebrews xii. 14, “ without holiness no man shall see the 
Lord.” St. James has the same thought, which he expresses partly in the 
same terms, i. 22-25. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Apostle 
is speaking here of justification. He does not mean to assert that any one 
can be justified by doing the law, for the whole scope of the Epistle and 
of Scripture in general is against this error. He means that the privilege 
of hearing the law, which the Jews overvalued, was useless unless they 
endeavoured to keep it. This endeavour, being a test of their sincerity 
and a proof of their faith, was also an evidence of their justification, but 
certainly not the cause of it. 

Professor Stuart, in his translation of a part of Ernesti’s Elements of 
Interpretation, remarks, that “Rom. ii. 13 states the rule of legal justifica- 
tion.”* If the meaning were, that the words of the Apostle would fitly 
express such rule, the remark would be admissible. No doubt St. Paul 
might properly have stated this rule in the very terms here used, but the 
context shows that such was not his intention. He does not merely intro- 
duce “a supposed case,” as the same author affirms in his commentary on 
verses 14 and 27. Professor Hodge also makes the same remark on verse 
26. “Paul does not say that any Heathen does fully answer the 


* Andover, 1822, p. 92, note on Sect, 181. 


"| We / Ye /; M0 


3 


* 


34 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. II, 





the law, do by nature the things 608 Ta Tov véuov Tory, obroL 
contained in the law, these, having véuov pu) byovte¢ éavToi¢ elat 


demands of the law, the case is merely stated hypothetically.” So also on 
verse 27: “As pointed and understood by our translators, this verse 
expresses more than the preceding one.* The obedient Gentile would not 
only be accepted” &c. If the obedience is hypothetical, as it must be to 
harmonize with the Professor’s statements elsewhere, the acceptance can 
be no more than ideal. The same hypothetical view is given by Barnes on 
verse 26. “The Apostle does not expressly affirm that this” (keeping the 
moral law,) “was ever done; but he supposes the case.” Waldane, in his 
peculiarly polemic Exposition of the Romans, pursues the same idea of 
hypothetical statement and argument.t But the very next verses to that 
under consideration, and also the 26th and 27th, afford palpable evidence that 
St. Paul is not speaking hypothetically. “ When Gentiles do the works of 
the law,” and “the uncircumcision that keeps the law shall judge” or con- 
demn the Jewish transgressor, is evidently not the language of hypothesis. 
Much of the confusion of thought occasioned by this part of the Epistle has 
arisen from translating the original verb in verse 13 “shall be justified,” 
while it should rather be rendered, ‘shall be approved of, accepted.’ The re- 
marks of Morus on this point are very judicious. “The terms justification, 
salvation, new man, faith, are used in various senses, and therefore are not 
always to be explained in the same way. Attention to this will remove ap- 


* The Professor has made no objection to such pointing and meaning; and, if he had, it would not 
affect my remark, 

+ Not to embarrass the reader, I prefer throwing a few quotations from this writer, accompanied 
by a remark or two, in a note. On the words “to every man that worketh good” in yer. 10, he says: 
“‘He who had performed his duty, if any such could be found, should enjoy rest and satisfaction.” 
Is the verse hypothetical ? and can it be believed that the Apostle here makes a promise which he knew 
was practically worthless ?—On ver. 12: ‘* Without lave, that is, a written law, for none are without 
law. The Gentiles had not received the written law ; they had, however, sinned, and they shall perish, 
that is to say, be condemned without that law. The Jews had received the written law; they had also 
sinned, they will be judged, that is to say, condemned by that law; for, in the next verse, St. Paul de- 
clares that only the doers of the law shall be justified; and consequently, as condemnation stands 
opposed to justification, they who are not doers of it will be condemned.” According to this state- 
ment the Apostle affirms the condemnation of all Jews and Gentiles. The expositor’s error results 
from not recognising the emphatic character of the word “sinned,” and othersin the same connection, 
as above stated, and also the true meaning of “shall be justified.”—On ver. 13: “ The doers of the law 
shall be justified —By this we must understand an exact obedience to the law to be intended.”—On 
ver. 25: “ When, therefore, the Apostle says,—if thou keep the law, he supposes a case, not implying 
that it was ever verified; but if it should exist, the result would be what is stated.” And on the 
next verse: “He supposes a case in regard to the Gentiles. This hypothetical mode of reasoning is 
common with Paul, of which we have an example in the same chapter, where he says, that the doers 
of the law shall be justified; of whom, however, in the conclusion of his argument, Chap. iii. 19, he 
affirms that none can be found.” The exposition of the first text is erroneous, and assumed without 
proof; andin the latter the subject is different—On ver. 27; “The fulfilling of the law and its trans- 
gression are here to be taken in their fullest import, namely, for an entire and complete fulfilment, and 
for the slightest transgression of the law.” The reader will be gratified to learn, that after so much of 
what has been called hypothetical, (which, however inapplicable he may regard the epithet in reference 
to the Epistle, he will probably allow is strictly appropriate to the expositions,) “ the Apostle, in va 
28, 29, passes to what is reality, not supposition.” So Mr. Haldane allows. 


Cu. I. 14, 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 35 


15 vouoc, ofteveg évdetxvvvtat TO not the law, are a law unto them- 
épyov Tov vouov ypantov év selves: which show the work of 15 


parent opposition. And many objections to Christianity would never have 
been urged, if duxacovy had not been invariably translated to justify, toya 
works, and so in other similar instances, Whenever the phrase ¢o become jus- 
tified is uttered, the hearer immediately attaches to it the idea of obtaining 
remission of sins; whereas this is not always its meaning. In Ron. ii. 13, 
dixatwSijoovrat signifies, will be approved of by God, will be rewarded by 
him. The discourse has nothing to do with remission of sins.”* A striking 
instance of the use of this word in the same sense occurs in Matt. xii. 37: 
“By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be 
condemned ;” that is, the language, as indicative of the character, will con- 
stitute a ground of divine approbation or condemnation. So also in Matt. 
xi. 19: “ Wisdom is justified of her children;” which means, that the 
really wise will recognise the excellence of God’s religious dispensations and 
heartily approve them. 

The verses immediately following must be explained, if the context be 
properly regarded, of Gentiles not acquainted with a divine revelation. 
“By nature” is an erroneous translation, which might lead to the supposi- 
tion of fallen man’s having a natural ability to keep the divine law. It 
ought to be rendered, ‘in nature,’ meaning in their natural condition with- 
out a direct revelation. Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva translation, 
have “of nature;” Wiclif “kyndle,” that is, “naturally,” as the Rheims 
has plainly expressed the meaning of the Saxon word. It is equivalent to 
“without law” in ver. 12. The sense is as follows: ‘For when Gentiles 
who have no directly revealed law, do in this situation live conformably 
to the general directions of revelation, although they have no such revealed 
law as the Jews have, yet the general principles of duty taught and 
inculeated by conscience and reason, are to become their law and to govern 
them. And these principles always coincide with those of revelation, and 
are shown in the lives of such.’ 

It has been supposed, that to speak of Gentiles living agreeably to moral 
law would be contradictory to the representation given of their religious and 
moral condition in the preceding chapter. But it ought to be considered 
that the Apostle is there representing the state of the Heathen as a mass; 
while here he speaks of some individuals. And besides, the obedience he 
has in view, can be nothing more than a general endeavour to live in accord- 
ance with that degree of religious knowledge which the sincere Gentile 
may have. There is therefore no inconsistency. Yet the supposition has 
given rise to an attempt to explain this passage differently, by changing the 
usual punctuation, and understanding by “Gentiles” those who had been con- 


* Hermeneutica Sacra Nov. Test. vol. ii. p. 18, Lips. 1802. 


36 COMMENTARY ON THE {Sxer. III, 


the law written in their hearts, their Tai¢ kapdiace abtOv, ovjipap- 
conscience also bearing witness,and Tupotong advt@v Tij¢g ovvetdh- 


verted to Christianity. The sense thus elicited is as follows: “When 
the Gentiles, who by nature have not the law, do the things originally 
intended by and virtually contained in the Jaw; when they renounce 
their idols, and no longer worship the host of heaven, but turn to the 
service of the living God; when they accept of that salvation that is 
now made known unto them, and submit to the righteousness of God 
that is now manifested in their sight; these, though they have not the 
law, are a law unto themselves, their faith in Christ and his doctrine does 
more than supply the place of the law of Moses; and by their submission 
to that promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth Were to be 
blessed, and who is the very end of the law itself for righteousness to every 
one that believeth, they evidently show the great work of the law written 
in their hearts.” It seems strange that a man should be able to persuade 
himself that such can be the Apostle’s meaning. The statement is evidently 
irreconcilable with the whole scope of the context, and indeed with the very 
last words rightly understood. The Apostle is not contrasting Jews and 
converted Gentiles, but endeavouring to make the irreligious Jew feel his 
delinquency by comparing him with the sincere Gentile. Certainly men 
who had “faith in Christ” and had embraced his “ doctrine,” could with 
no propriety be said not to have the law, and to be a law unto themselves. 
Yet so satisfied is the author of this exposition with the truth of it as to 
affirm, that “the context plainly shows, and the sense of the whole Scripture 
proves, that the words not only fairly may but necessarily ought to be so 
translated.”* 

“ Work of the law :” This has been supposed by some to be equivalent 
to the common expression, ‘ works of the law.’ But in such case the word 
is always plural. Besides, such works are open to general observation, and 
the phrase expresses a holy course of living; whereas what is here spoken 
of is “written in the heart.”—The phrase has also been regarded as pleo- 
nastic for law simply. Such pleonasms are not uncommon, and illustrations 
may be found in most commentators and lexicographers. But it is unne- 
cessary to introduce such a principle here. The Hebrew word correspond- 
ing to “work,” iy, and the word denoting substance, reality, nature, 
bry, are used by ‘Hebrew writers, as the term “work” is in this pas- 
sage, for reality, efficiency. Thus Maimonides: “The work, reality, 53%) 
of that element (or principle,) will be seen.” Foundations of the law, in 
Bernard’s Selections from the Iad, chap. iv. sect. 7, p. 11.4 And in the 


* See the Religion of nature proved to bea mere idol, by Charles Willats, M. A.; an article published 
in the Scholar armed, vol. i. p. 207, 210, Lond. 1795. 

+ This work is a small octavo volume, which will be found very useful in facilitating the acquisition 
of Rabbinical Hebrew. It was published at Cambridge in 1832. 


Ca, II. 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ~ 387 


cewe Kat petadd dAAHAwY TOV their thoughts the mean while 
Aoytouav KaTtnyopobyTwy 7} Kat accusing, or else excusing, one an- 


precepts on repentance, chap. i. sect. 6, bY» occurs in the same sense: ‘and 
the reality (nature) of the day of atonement,’ &c. The expression of St. 
Paul is probably of the same sort, and “the work of the law” is its 
reality, and efficiency, that which God hath engraven on the heart or 
moral nature of man. The sincere though imperfect endeavour of some 
Gentiles, to do what is right, shows that there is a moral law which the 
God that made them has stamped upon their nature. ‘The conscience of 
such men bears concurrent witness with this law of which it is the index, 
and their thoughts and reasonings interchangeably condemn or apologise for 
them;’ that is, sometimes do the one and sometimes the other.—The 
preposition oy in composition with the participle here used, is considered 
by many as adding nothing to the sense. I prefer, as above, giving its pro- 
per meaning, because it makes a good sense, and corresponds with the 
author’s ordinary usage, as will hereafter be seen.—Metagd dAAqiwv is 
rendered in our translation, “the mean while—one another.” Each of the 
two words certainly bears the meaning here given, but not in such a con- 
struction as this. Besides, “one another” cannot refer to the persons 
under consideration, for the Apostle is not speaking of some of them accus- 
ing or defending others; but rather of the actings of the mind on its own 
character and condition. “One another” relates to the thoughts, and the 
two Greek words mean interchangeably, alternately. The idea is that the 
thoughts and reasonings of the individual sometimes accuse and sometimes 
apologise for him. 

The connection of the 16th verse has been the subject of considerable 
discussion. Bengel connects it with the word show in the beginning of 
ver. 15, which, although in the present tense, he regards as having a future 
meaning. Thus he elicits this sense: ‘ character will then be manifested.’ 
Still the remainder of that verse will mark the condition of such Gentile 
mind in the present state of being. His meaning may be thus expressed ; 
‘And they will show that God’s law is really written on their hearts, 
(their conscience, &¢.) in the day’ &c, Olshausen favours this arrange- 
ment. Such may be the construction, but all the clauses of the 15th verse 
appear to be so closely connected as to make any separation of one from 
another quite improbable; and moreover, it would seem that the verb 
should certainly have been in the future. The construction most usually 
adopted places vs. 13, 14, 15, in a parenthesis, connecting vs. 16 and 12. 
Professor Stuart rather prefers making the 12th also parenthetical. Tholuck 
objects to so long a parenthesis. But this is not unnatural in such a 
writer as St. Paul. It were idle to swell this note with illustrations taken 
from Hebrew and other ancient writers; but I think we need search no 


88 COMMENTARY ON THE {Sxer. III. 


16 other;) in the day when God shall d7o0Aoyoupévwr), év auépa dre 16 
judge the secrets of men, by Jesus xpivel 6 Bede Ta KOUTTa TOV 

17 Christ, according to my gospel. Be- dvdpairwv kata 70 ebayyédbv 
hold, thou art called a Jew, and pov dtd "Inood Xpiorov. Wi dé 17 
restest in the law, and makest thy od "lovdaio¢ érovoudgy Kai érra- 


farther for parentheses in the Bible, though they may not be marked either 
in printed editions or in manuscripts, than the Book of Deuteronomy and 
Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple; and in the classics, than 
the Odes of Horace, and the A&neid of Virgil. A diction springing from a 
glowing imagination is very likely to abound with parentheses. A writer 
of such a temperament, striking on a certain thought allied to another just 
expressed, would naturally dwell on it for a time; and, under the influence 
of such feeling, might indeed be drawn off entirely from his main topic, 
provided his temperament should get the better of his reason and judgment. 
But this is never the case with St. Paul, whose logical faculty and ardent 
feeling are always in happy harmony, the thoughtful element in his 
character counterbalancing the sensitive. If, on any occasion, he diverges 
from the most direct course, it is only, like some experienced and judicious 
fellow-traveller, to show you more fully the beauty and richness of the 
prospect, and to impress you properly with the sublimity of the scene. 
He always brings you back again to the original point of view. I can see 
no valid objection, therefore, in regarding the 16th verse as connected with 
the 12th, although perhaps not to the exclusion of a connection also with 
the 15th. A similar construction, most probably, appears in the 5th 
chapter, where the latter half of the 18th verse, though closely allied both 
in thought and language with the former, seems also to make the conclu- 
sion of a sentence, the first part of which consists of ver. 12th. 

“My Gospel:” That is, the Gospel which I preach. Thus ‘my trust,’ 
in 2 Tim. i. 12, means, the Gospel with the preaching of which I have been 
intrusted. Our paraphrastic translation, “that which I have committed 
unto him,” does not give the right meaning, which would rather be para- 
phrastically expressed by, ‘that which has been committed unto me.’ 
This will be evident to any one who will carefully compare in the Greek 
1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 20, and 2 Tim. i. 14. The silly exposition which would 
make “My Gospel” equivalent to the Gospel of St. Luke, supposed to be 
written under the Apostle’s superintendence, is unworthy of notice. 

17-24. “Behold:” Instead of ide many ancient authorities read é dé 
but if; and thus the Vulgate, si autem, which is followed by Wiclif and the 
Rheims, In this case the first part of the sentence, technically called the 
protasis, will extend to the end of the 20th verse, and the 2lst will 
begin the latter part or the apodosis. The best critics prefer this reading, 
which is supported by most respectable external testimony, as may be 


Cu. IT. 16-24.] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 39 





varaty TO vou Kal Kavydoat 
18 év Ye@ Kal yevoonere TH VEANWA 
kat doKyager¢ Ta SLadéporta, 
KaTnyoomevog ék TOD VOmOV, 
19 rérowWdc Te ceavTov ddnyov 
7 ~ ~ ~ ’ va 
eivat TVPAOY, POC TOV EV OKO- 
20 tev, madevTijy ddpdvwr, diddo- 
Kadov variwv, éyovta Tv pOp- 
Pwo TIE yudcEews Kat TIC dAN- 

21 Veiac év TO VOW: 6 Odv diddo- 

if XN ’ 4 

Kkov Erepov oeavtTov ov d.ddo- 
Ketc; 6 KNPLOGWY jun) KAETTELY 
22 KAémreic; 6 Aéywv jun jroryeverv 
ed t oa XN 
poryeverc; O& BdeAvoobuEVvog Ta 
23 eldwAa lepoovdeic; d¢ év vouw 
kavyaoa, dia THe TapaBdoews 
TOD Vvouov TOV Yedv aTUwdcetc ; 


boast of God, and knowest his 18 
will, and approvest the things that 
are more excellent, being instructed 
out of the law; and art confident 19 
that thou thyself art a guide of the 
blind, a light of them which are in 
darkness, an instructor of the 20 
foolish, a teacher of babes, which 
hast the form of knowledge and of 
the truth in the law. Thou there- 21 
fore which teachest another, teach- 
est thou not thyself? thou that 
preachest a man should not steal, 
dost thou steal? thou that sayest 22 
a man should not commit adultery, 
dost thou commit adultery? thou 
that abhorrest idols, dost thou com- 


24 Td yap dvoua Tov Yeov dv bude mit sacrilege? thou that makest 23 


thy boast of the law, through 





seen in Griesbach, and in other critical editions. The general sense in 
either case remains the same. In the one the reader’s attention is called to 
the fact which in the other is hypothetically stated. ‘Behold, thou are 
called a Jew, &c.; art thou therefore practically inconsistent? Or: ‘If 
thou art named a Jew and hast so many claims, and advantages, dost thou 
then that teachest another not teach also thyself, &¢.2?—Kavydaoat is the 
second person present passive, an unusual contracted form of kavydecat put 
for the regular kavydy or Kavya. It occurs also in ver. 28, and is similar to 
édvvacat in Luke xvi. 25. The best grammarians regard it as a form of the 
later common dialect.*—“ Knowest his will:’” The article in the Greek 
supplies the place of the pronoun and therefore there is no occasion for the 
use of italics. See Middleton on the use of the article, Chap. v. Sect. i. $3, 
pp. 69, 70.—* Approvest the things that are more excellent :” The Greek 
admits another rendering, thus: ‘distinguishest the things that differ:’ and 
the translation of Tyndale agrees with this view: “hast experience of good 
and bad, in that thou arte informed by the lawe.” Both have able advo- 
cates, who have appealed alike to Phil. i. 10, where the same expression 
occurs. Either meaning suits the context here and would well apply to 
the character described. But the former is better adapted to the context 
in Philippians, as a prayer for the approbation of what is best is more in 
character with the Apostle, than one for any degree of mental discrimina- 
tion would be. The Vulgate has here probas utiliora, and in the other 
place ut probetis potiora— A light of them that are in darkness :” 


* See Robinson's translation of Buttman’s Greek Grammar, Sect. 103, iii. 1, note t. 


40 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. II. 





breaking the law dishonourest thou 
24 God? For the name of God is 
blasphemed among the Gentiles 
25 through you, as it is written. For 
circumcision yerily profiteth, if thou 
keep the law; but if thou be a 


BAaodnueiras év roic &9vect, Ka- 
Vag yéypantat. Tleperoua pév 25 
yap Oderei, dv viuov mpdaage - 
dv d& rapaBdrne vomov qe, 7 Te- 
plTous cov dxpoBvaria yéyovev. 
"Edy obv 1) dxpoBvoria ta dixat- 26 


breaker of the law, thy circumci- 


Figurative for ‘a teacher of the ignorant and sinful.’ Comp. John viii. 12, 
i. 5. Matt. iv. 16.—“The form:” The Greek word expresses a mere 
appearance, a semblance, in opposition to the reality; or, a delineation, 
correct impression. In the former sense it occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 5, “a form 
of godliness,” in contradistinction to its “ power ;” that is, a show, pretence, 
without the reality. But here it describes some supposed advantage and 
superiority, and therefore must have the latter meaning.—Ver. 21 et seq. 
The interrogative construction is generally preferred in this and the fol- 
lowing verses, and the particle “therefore” seems to be in favour of it. 
Olshausen prefers the direct address. Passages similar to these in senti- 
ment may be found in Jewish writers. Koppe gives a few illustrations.— 
“Dost thou commit sacrilege?’ Namely, by robbing God of his just 
rights and service. Comp. Mal. i. 7,8, 12-14, iii. 8,9. This is a much 
more probable meaning than that of plundering heathen temples, which 
has no historical support, and would hardly be introduced in such a con- 
nection.—Verse 24, refers to what is stated in several places of the Old 
Testament. See, among others, Isa, lii.5, and Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23. 
25-29. These verses contain the same general thought as that in 12-16; 
and in this respect, may be compared with Heb. x. 26-31 and vi.4—8. “ For” 
is probably illative of the general thought before expressed and illustrated, 
namely, that the external advantages of the Mosaic law were of little or no 
worth, unless accompanied by an internal religious character.—Circum- 
cision is put, by a synecdoche, for the whole Jewish system, or denotes a 
Jewish condition; and uncircumcision expresses a Gentile state or Gentiles 
themselves. An attentive reader will immediately perceive these different 
shades of meaning, and be at no loss rightly to attach them to the words.— 
The first three verses of this portion are regarded by the writers before 
mentioned as expressing merely supposable cases. I must repeat the 
remark before made, that on this theory the statements seem to me to be 
mere trifling. Nothing appears plainer than the meaning of the 26th 
verse: ‘If the Gentiles sincerely obey the law of God so far as it is known 
to them, they are just as acceptable to God as if they were Jews.’ And 
that a real, sincere, though imperfect, obedience is what is meant, and not 
a hypothetical perfect one, “which has never actually existed,” is proved 
by the next verse. For preposterous would it be to speak of Gentiles 


Cx, II. 25-27.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 41 





Gata Tov vouov dvAdooy, ovyt sion is made uncireumcision. There- 26 
7) dxpoBvotia avtovd ei¢ TeptTo- fore, if the uncircumcision keep the 

27 unv Aoysodjoerat, Kal Kptvet 7) righteousness of the law, shall not 
&k pioews dxpoBvotia Tov v6uoyv his uncircumcision be counted for 
Tehovoa o& TOV did ypdtysaTo¢ circumcision? And shall not un- 27 
kal TEptTouAc TapaBaTHY Vouwov; circumcision which is by nature, if 


hypothetically keeping the law, and yet really condemning Jews for their 
transgressions. Or is the condemnation hypothetical too? This would 
seem necessary in order to preserve consistency, but would involve too 
great an absurdity to be maintained. Its meaning is made luminous by 
our Lord’s language in Matt. xii. 41, 42, “The men of Nineveh, the queen 
of the South, shall condemn this generation.” Here the original for 
“condemn” is the same word compounded with a preposition as that here 
translated “judge,” and the preposition is often omitted without any 
diminution of the proper meaning of the compound word. It follows 
therefore that the keeping of the law in verse 25, is not an absolutely per- 
fect obedience, but only a sincere one, although imperfect. 

In verse 26, the word “ uncircumcision” as first used, is the abstract for 
the concrete, and equivalent to ‘the uncircumcised man,’ and the pronoun 
“his,” which follows the second instance of the word, has this intended con- 
crete for its antecedent. “ The uncircumcision that is by nature :” This may 
mean, the Gentile who is naturally uncireumcised. It must be granted that, 
in this case the words “by nature” are unnecessary ; still such adjuncts 
are not uncommon. Nevertheless there is undoubtedly force in Olshausen’s 
remark, that the whole phrase is in evident contrast with the last clause of 
the verse, “ by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.” He 
connects the words dy or rather, of nature, éx @boewe, with the clause ‘the 
uncircumcision that fulfilleth the law.’ The whole idea will therefore be 
expressed thus: ‘Gentiles, who of their natural condition, that is, without 
any direct revelation, live in accordance with the law of reason and con- 
science.’—“ By the letter and circumcision :” Macknight remarks that “the 
common translation,” which connects this phrase with the next, “ makes no 
sense.” He prefixes the words, “though a Jew,” regarding “letter and cir- 
cumcision” as a hendiadys, thus: “ Judge thee, a transgressor of law, though 
a Jew by the literal circumcision ;” that is, outwardly. But the meaning 
thus obtained is less forcible than one might expect in such a connection 
and from such a writer; and it requires the insertion of an expression, the 
omission of which is improbable. Acd, with a genitive, by, through, some- 
times denotes circumstance, state, and may be expressed by, along with. 
Thus in 2 Cor. ii. 4, “ with,dcd@, many tears ;” v. 10, “done in his body,” dcd, 
in his bodily condition. Also in Heb. ix. 12, “not with the blood, but 
with his own blood,” where did is used twice. Closely allied to this is 


42 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Sxor. 111. IV. 





it fulfil the law, judge thee, who 
by the letter and circumcision dost 
28 transgress the law? For he is not 
a Jew, which is one outwardly, 
neither its that circumcision which 
29 is outward in the flesh; but he és 
a Jew, which is one inwardly, and 


Od ydp 6 év 7H pavepd, "lov- 28 
daibc éotw, oddé 1) ev TH ha- 
vep@, EV oapki, TepLToUH, GAA’ 6 29 
év TO KpuTT@ "lovdaioc, kat Tre- 
piroun Kapdiac, év mvebuart, ob 
ypdyuare* ov 6 trarvoc ovk && 
dvdporwv, GA’ Ex Tod Yeov, 


circumcision ¢s that of the heart, in 
the spirit, and not in the letter, 
whose praise is not of men, but of 
God. 


the signification, notwithstanding, which it seems to have in Rom. xiv. 20, 
“who eateth with offence,” dvd, notwithstanding such result, Thus we 
speak of persisting through difficulty, that is, notwithstanding it; and this last 
meaning seems most appropriate here. “The letter” is best explained by 
‘the written law.’ It is the law considered as “ written and engraven,” and 
the word is thus used in 2 Cor, iii. 6. The sense of the whole phrase may 
be expressed thus: ‘notwithstanding the advantages of the written law and 
the Mosaic system.’ 

The general meaning of the three verses appears to be as follows: ‘ Juda- 
ism is indeed advantageous, if you live a religious life, in conformity with 
its moral precepts and spirit ; otherwise your condition as a Jew is no more 
acceptable than that of a Gentile would be. If therefore the Gentile yield 
a sincere obedience according to his knowledge and opportunities, surely 
his Gentile condition will be regarded as favourably as if he had been a 
Jew. Yes, and this Gentile, if, with no other advantages than those of his 
natural condition, he lives a sincerely religious life, will rise up in the judg- 
ment and condemn you, who, notwithstanding the advantages of scripture 
and the Jewish religion, do nevertheless transgress the law of God.’ 

28, 29. “Spirit and letter” evidently denote what is internal and 
what is merely outward, somewhat similar to 2 Cor. iii. 6, where the same 
words occur for Law and Gospel: ‘Circumcision does not consist merely 
in the outward rite, but chiefly in the inward character.’ The spirit of the 
Jewish system promotes internal sanctification, of which the outward cireum. 
cision wasasymbol, Comp, Jer. ix. 26. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6. In Rom. ix. 6, 
the word Israel is once used to denote those of the lineal descendants of 
Jacob who were spiritual in character. Such are the genuine Israelites, 
(comp. John i. 47,) as here the true Jew is the inwardly religious man. 
The general thought in these verses may be thus expressed : ‘ It isnot a seru- 
pulous attention to outward rites, but an inward principle of holiness, which 
makes a man acceptable to God.’ 


Cu. II. 28—IIT. 2.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 43 





SECTION IV. 


Caap. III. 


JEWISH OBJECTIONS MET AND SINFULNESS PROVED. GENERAL CONCLUSION 
DRAWN. 


Ill. Té obv +6 meptoodv tov Tov- What advantage then hath the III. 
daiov ; 7} Tig 7h WpédELa THC TEpt- Jew? or what profit zs there of cir- 

2 trounce; IloAd xara mdévta T06- cumcision? Much every way; 2 
Tov: me@Tov wéev yao, Ort ért- chiefly, because that unto them 
orev0qoav Ta AGyLa TOU Yeov. were committed the oracles of God. 


Cuap. iii. There is a very close connection between this chapter and the 
preceding. There the Jewsas well as the Gentiles are said to have broken 
God’s law, sincere obedience to which is insisted on as a condition of 
his favour. In this the charge against the Jews is renewed, and proved by 
reference to the Old Testament ; and in this way the author returns to his 
main topic, and comes to the conclusion that neither Jew nor Gentile can 
expect justification by moral obedience. 

Vs. 1, 2. After such a course of remark as pervades the previous chap- 
ter, distasteful as it must have been to prejudice, ignorance and vanity, it 
is quite natural for the Apostle to introduce a querulous objector starting 
the inquiries. Still, the form of the expression may be nothing more than 
his interrogative style. Comp. iv. 1, vi. 1-3, 15, 16, viii. 31-35, ix. 19-21, 
xi. 1,2,4,11. In either case the general sense will be the same.—‘‘ Every 
way :” that is, in reference to religion and morals.—“ Chiefly because 
that :” literally, ‘for indeed chiefly because.’ or may well be illative, 
as the general thought is, ‘ they have much, for indeed it consists chiefly 
in this, that,’ &c—In the following clause the word “ oracles” is accusa- 
tive, and the correct translation thus: ‘they were entrusted with.’ Wher- 
ever the original word occurs in the sense of committing or entrusting, the 
person is in the nominative, except in one case where the verb isin the in- 
finitive ; and even here it follows another verb the nominative to which is 
personal. See 1 Cor. ix. 17, Gal. ii. 7, 1 Thess, ii. 4, 1 Tim. i. 11, Tit. i. 3. 
The term “ oracles” is used in Acts vii. 38, for the divine law as received 
by Moses. It may here comprehend the whole revelation as contained in 
the Old Testament. The possession of this sacred treasure principally dis- 
tinguished the Hebrews from all other people, and gave them spiritual 
advantages which could in no other way be secured. 

3-8. The question before put is: What is the advantage of Judaism ? 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Secr. IV, 





For what ! if some did not believe, Ti ydp; el qrlornody Tevec, i 8 
shall their unbelief make the faith 1) dmuoria abt@yv Tijv miotL Tod 
of God without effect? God for- WYeot Katapyfaet; M7) yévowro: 4 


bid: yea, let God be true, but every 
man a liar; as it is written, That 
thou mightest be justified in thy 
sayings, and mightest overcome 


yevéadw dé 6 Bede dAndic, Ta¢ 
d& dvdpworo¢e webornc, Kadac 
yéypanrat: érwc dv dikawdqe 
év Tol¢ Adyote Gov Kai viKhonS 


to which an answer has just been given. The question results very natu- 
rally from the representation before made of the moral condition of the 
Jews; consequently it stands in close connection with it. The author says, 
“some” Jews. He might have said many, but his delicacy of feeling leads 
him to spare his much loved nation. Comp. xi. 14. ‘ What if some, influ- 
enced by neglect and irreligion, or devoted to an external system merely, 
and regardless of the inward spirit of their law, have been faithless to God, 
and have rejected the true Messiah; shall their want of faith destroy God’s 
fidelity, that trustworthiness of his in which the fullest confidence should 
be placed?’ The word iotu¢, which is generally rendered “ faith,” is often 
used to denote confidence, fidelity, trust, as shown by the connection in 
which it occurs. The sense of the verse, which is expressed in the Apos- 
tle’s interrogative and forcible manner, is simply this; ‘the irreligious un- ~ 
belief of some Jews cannot, in the least degree, make yoid or diminish the 
fidelity of God which gives him a perfect claim to our faith and submis- 
sion. —The reader of the Greek will not fail to remark the paronomasia 
in the words émortet3noav, ijriotnoay, dmotia, and ziortv. This is a 
favourite figure with Hebrew writers.—“ God forbid :” literally, ‘let it not 
be.’ The phrase is expressive of aversion, and is used in the Septuagint 
for the Hebrew word which is rendered in our English translation as 
above. Comp. in the Hebrew, Septuagint and English, Gen. xliv. 7, 17.— 
The following words may be construed thus: ‘ but let it be, God is true and 
every man a liar.’ In this case, however, the Greek would most probably 
be, 7) yévoiro: yévoiro dé, &c. The usual construction can hardly be im- 
proved. The verb is declarative, ‘let God appear to be,’ as in 2 Cor. iv. 7, 
“the excellency of the power may be of God,” that is, ‘may evidently ap- 
pear to be divine.’ The sentiment of the verse is plain: ‘the fidelity of 
God must be maintained, whatever may be the consequence as respects 
every individual of mankind.’ His truth is essential, and of course can 
never waver; but man, weak, sinful, unstable, is always prone to error 
and falsity. The quotation is from Ps. li. (Sept. 1.) 6, and corresponds 
with the words of the Septuagint. Kpiveodat may be either middle or pas- 
sive. If the former, the translation will be, ‘when thou judgest ;’ and if the 
latter, as in our English Bible, “ when thou art judged,” that is, when weak and 
arrogant man assumes to question the correctness of thy procedure. The 


Cu. III. 8-7.] 


5 


év T@ Kpiveodat oe. El 0& 7 
adicia joy Yeow dixaoobvyny 
ovviornat, Ti spodvpev ; [17 ddLKOG 
6 Sede 6 émipépwv THY doyhr ; 
M?) 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


when thou art judged. But if our 
unrighteousness commend the right- 
eousness of God, what shall we say? 
Is God unrighteous, who taketh 
vengeance ? (I speak as a man:) 


6 (Kata dvdpwrov Aéyw") 
yévoito* érel THC KpivEet 6 YEdc 


7 tOv Kdowov; Ei yde 7 dAjdea 


God forbid; for then how shall 6 
God judge the world? Forif the 7 


latter exposition agrees very well with the connection here, but would not 
suit that in the Psalm, the literal translation of which is, ‘that thou mayest 
be justified in thy speaking, (and) be pure in thy judging ;’ and the paral- 
lelism requires the latter phrase to be equivalent to, ‘thy passing sentence.’ 

In ver. 5, the same objection is again resumed, although in a different 
form. The Apostle may intend to speak of man’s wickedness in general 
as being made to establish and recommend to a thoughtful creature the 
divine excellence. But, inasmuch as the language is put into the mouth of 
a querulous Jew, it may have arisen from statements of the Apostle him- 
self, since he has asserted what such a one might represent as the ground 
of his fallacy. I allude to what the author elsewhere says, namely, that 
the rejection of the Gospel by the mass of the Jews became, in the provi- 
dence of God, the occasion of offering it to the Gentiles. See ix. 23, and 
note there. The objector seems to have in view a charge of iniquity 
brought against the Jews on account of their unbelief. “God’s righteous- 
ness” is to be understood as before in i 17. Professor Stuart indeed 
objects to this, that as “the Apostle (or the objector) is speaking of that 
attribute of God which is concerned with the judging and punishing of 
offenders, the retributive justice of God rust be understood by” the 
phrase. But this does not follow, since God’s character as righteous judge 
would be equally impugned, whether the words express his attribute of 
justice or his plan of justification. Opposition to the one or rejection 
of the other must alike be followed by divine punishment. Still it is 
not improbable that both meanings may be merged into one, and the 
phrase express God’s righteousness as shown in his offering justification and 
salvation, through the Gospel scheme, alike to Jew and Gentile. There 
appears to be a sudden suppression of the sense, an aposiopesis, as the 
rhetoricians call the figure. The objection is commenced and suddenly in- 
terrupted by the Apostle thus: ‘If our irreligion and iniquity tend, as 
you say, to recommend and establish God’s method of justifying men 
through the Gospel—well, in this case, what shall we say? what is the 
right conclusion? that God cannot justly punish you for this faithless- 
ness ’—“Taketh vengeance ;” literally, bringeth wrath upon, equiva- 
lent to, inflicteth punishment. Comp. i. 18. He expresses his abhorrence 
of such a conclusion, since God is the righteous judge of the world-—“I 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


truth of God hath more abounded 
through my lie unto his glory, why 
yet am I also judged as a sinner? 
And not rather, as we be slander- 
ously reported, and as some affirm 
that we say, Let us do evil, that 
good may come ? whose damnation 





Tov Yeod év TO euO Webopare 
érrepiocevoev ele tijv dbzav ad- 
Tov, Ti tte KdyO Oc duapTwro¢ 
Kpivowar; Kai jh, KaIOG BAaG- 
dnuobpeda Kai KavGC hast TLvEC 
jude Aéyerv Ste Tovjowpev Ta 
Kakd, iva tA9g Ta dyadd; wv 


[Seer. IV. 


speak as a man:;” that is, as men are accustomed to speak. This phrase is 
generally employed to mark what is weak, frail, erroneous, sinful, though 
occasionally it means, in accordance with sound reason, as a rational being. 
It is used in connection with conduct or character. Thus in 1 Cor. iii. 3. 
* Walk according to man,” (marginal reading, and Greek,) that is, as weak 
and sinful men feel and act; Gal. i. 11, “the Gospel is not after (according 
to,) man,” in character with human weakness and imperfection; 1 Pet. iy. 6, 
“according to men,” that is, most probably, according to their erroneous 
and sinful prejudices. It is also associated with some remark or argument. 
Thus in 1 Cor. ix. 8, “Say I these things asa man?” Are they my own 
weak and fallible statements, drawn solely from human observation and 
experience, and therefore but inadequately supported? And in Gal. iii. 15, 
“JT speak after the manner of men: Here the Apostle does not mean, as 
some have imagined, ‘I argue with you weakly and in a way adapted to 
your imperfect understanding ;’ but, ‘I appeal to you as one reasonable 
man may properly appeal to another.’ 

The careful reader will have observed that the inspired author has not 
yet fully met the infidel Jewish objector. He has merely stopped his 
mouth, by asserting the unwavering truthfulness and fidelity of God in 
opposition to all human falsehood and faithlessness. He has merely said 
that the great judge of the world cannot possibly do anything but what is 
right. All this the Jew might grant, and yet renew his objection. And 
this he is made to do in the next verse. “The truth of God” is evidently 
identical with his faithfulness and righteousness before spoken of; and 
“my lie” is but a stronger mode of expressing Jewish impiety and wicked 
infidelity. The objection therefore does but repeat what had been before 
said: ‘If the perfect and true character of God become the better known 
by means of what you are pleased to represent as my false and wicked 
behaviour, why should I, who have become the occasion of advancing God’s 
glory, be considered and punished as a sinner, since it is admitted that 
through me God’s honour is augmented? The complete answer immedi- 
ately follows. The principle on which the objection rests is that detesta- 
ble one which justly condemns its advocates, that the end sanctifies the 
means: ‘We may do what is wrong in order to advance what is right.’ 
The Apostle speaks of this principle as one which was calumniously charged 


~ 


Cu, III. 8-11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 47 





TO Kpina évdindv éott. Ti ovv; is just. What then? are we better * 9 
9 mpoeyoueda ; od TaVTWCO* TpOY- than they? No, in no wise: for 
TLagdpeda ya, lovdaiovg te kat we have before proved both Jews 
“EAAnvacg ravtac vd’ awaptiay and Gentiles, that they are all under 
10 elvat, Kadac yéypantac: drt sin; as it is written, There is 10 
ov« tare dixatoc ovdé sig: ovK none righteous, no, not one; there 11 
11 gorwy 6 ovvimy, ove tor 6 is none that understandeth, there is 


by some false witnesses against Christians. Various ways of analysing 
the Greek text have been proposed by the commentators. Some have 
suggested to supply té before and AéSwpev after v7, which gives this sense: 
‘and why may we not say, as we are slanderously reported to assert;’ or, 
supplying té before jj, and reading in connection with 67 rovjowper, the 
intermediate words being in a parenthesis, thus: ‘and why may we not do 
evil to promote good.’ The simplest construction seems to be as follows. 
After jw understand éori and read the clause interrogatively, thus: 
‘And is it that, &c.? does it involve this conclusion?’ Or, supply the 
imperative oTw, and make the sentence affirmative and imprecative, thus: 
‘And let it not be, (as we are calumniously charged to affirm,) that we 
may do’ &c. The reader may find a similar method of bringing out a full 
reply to an objection in ix. 20-23. 

9-18. IpoeyéueSa. If this be passive the natural translation would 
be, ‘are we excelled?’ which would not suit the context. In the middle 
voice the verb means to hold before one’s self. It may also be used in 
the sense of, to offer a pretext. In this case, if it be connected with the 
preceding words thus, ‘what pretext then do we offer? the following 
would be a very unsuitable reply, for which we should rather expect the 
words, ‘none at all.’ Ifit be disconnected with what precedes, the trans- 
lation will be, ‘what then? do we allege any pretext? According to 
either this or the former construction, it will not be easy to determine 
what the pretext referred to is. Probably, therefore, it is best to give the 
middle verb an active meaning, thus: ‘ What then? have we superiority ? 
are we in a better condition” Thus Theodoret, although he connects all 
the words so as to form one clause, “ what advantage then do we pos- 
sess?’* It is remarkable, however, that he has nothing corresponding 
with, “in no wise.” Perhaps he felt that this reply would not suit the 
connection which he had adopted. But if we retain that which is generally 
received, the meaning which he gives to the verb is most appropriate. 
The Apostle has returned to the subject of justification, and his question is 
equivalent to this: ‘What then? have we Jews any advantage over the 
Gentiles in pleading exemption from sin, and consequently in expecting to 
obtain justification by obedience 


* On the Romans in loc., Opera, Paris. 1643, tom. iii. p. 30. 


48 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Szer. IV. 





12 none that seeketh after God. They 
are all gone out of the way, they 
are together become unprofitable ; 
there is none that doeth good, no, 

13 not one. Their throat 7s an open 
sepulchre ; with their tongues they 
have used deceit; the poison of 


éx{nt@v tov Yebv: mdvtec 12 
éséxdwvay, dua 1xpevwdnoay * 
ovk tore Tov ypnotoTyTa, ovK 
torw twe évic. Tapog dvewy- 13 
pévog 6 Adpvyg avtov: Tai¢ 
yAdooatc abtdv edodArovaav « log 
doridwyv ind Ta YEeiAn adT@v* 


“Proved:” The marginal translation, “ charged,” is preferable. This 
is certainly the usual meaning of the Greek. Even if the other is admis- 
sible, it does not agree so well with the fact. The sinful condition of the 
Gentiles has indeed been fully exhibited in the first chapter, and as the 
author’s statements can be substantiated by abundant testimony, they may 
be regarded as proved. But he has not yet presented the same evidence 
of the delinquency of the Jews. He has accused them of practising the 
same vices for which they condemned the Gentiles, and the accusation was 
susceptible of undoubted proof; but he has not yet drawn out the evidence 
of their criminality. This he now proceeds to do. Thus he either sustains 
the charge before made, or, according to the other view of the word, con- 
firms the evidence of guilt before implied, and it may be said, in a degree 
proved.—* Under sin :” that is, subjected to its domination, sin being pro- 
bably personified, and regarded as an imperious despot. Comp. vii. 14. 

The Apostle now proceeds to prove Jewish sinfulness by referring to 
statements made respecting the people in their own scriptures. The 10th 
verse in substance, and the following verses to the 19th even in language, 
are found in the Alexandrine copy of the Septuagint of Psalm 13, with this 
exception that i776 in verse 13 is added, and that St. Paul has put the sen- 
timent of verse 11 in the form of an express negation, which in the Psalm 
is only plainly implied, the second verse of which contains precisely the 
same sentiment. It is possible that the words “there is none righteous, no, 
not one,” may be the Apostle’s own remark drawn from the passages 
immediately afterwards cited. On the third verse of the Psalm Jerome 
observes as follows: “ From this verse on to that where it is said, there is 
no fear of God before their eyes, the Hebrew contains nothing to corre- 
spond. It is inquired, therefore, how the Apostle uses this testimony in his 
Epistle to the Romans. I reply that the testimony which he adduces con- 
sists of passages interwoven together from Deuteronomy, the Psalter, and 
other places of Scripture.”* He then proceeds to comment on the Psalm 
as it isin the Greek. Breitinger, in his edition of the Septuagint, after 
giving the passages at the bottom of the page, adds, “ the scholiast remarks 
that all these are wanting in the Hebrew.” The probability is that they 
were appended to the Alexandrine copies of the Septuagint, in order to 
make them coincide with the Epistle, not that they have been lost from 

* Opera, Edit. Mart. Paris. 1699, Tom. ii. Appendix, Col. 146. 


Cu. III. 12-18. ] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


49 





14 bv 76 oTéua dpaic Kal TKpiac 
15 yéuet. Odei¢ of réde¢ adTov 
16 éxyéat aiwa* ovtpyuya Kat Ta- 

Aaitwpia &v tai¢ ddoi¢g avTov: 
17 kat dddv elphvac ovK &yvwoar: 
18 ov« gate POBo¢o Yeov admévartt 


asps ts under their lips: whose 14 
mouth is full of cursing and bitter- 

Their feet are swift to shed 15 
blood ; destruction and misery are 16 
in their ways; and the way of 17 
peace have they not known. There 18 


ness. 


the Hebrew. They are taken from various places of the Old Testament ; 
verse 10 is from Ps, xiv. (Sept. xiii.) 1 in the general thought; 11 from 2; 
12 from 3; 15 from vy. 9, and exl.3; 14 from x.7; 15-17 from Isa. lix.7, 8, 
and Prov. i. 16; 18 from Ps. xxxvi.1. See Erasmus in loc., and compare 
the note on verse 3 of the Psalm in Bible de Vence,* Tom. vii. p. 390. 
This view suits the Apostle’s argument better than that which supposes 
that they were all taken from one Psalm. For, by proving that sinfulness 
has in various ages been affirmed of the people or of great masses of them 
by their own prophets, he shows that it need not surprise them, if the 
charge is now renewed. It is too evident to require proof, that the specific 
charges here made are not intended of every individual. This is plain 
from the context of the original passages, and also from the fact that there 
are many to whom they would not apply. See particularly Ps. xiv. 4, 
where God’s people are mentioned in contradistinction to those who in the 
former verses are spoken of as fools, corrupt, without understanding, having 
become filthy, ignorant and careless workers of iniquity. Immediately 
afterwards, too, these people of God are called the generation of the 
righteous and the poor whose refuge is the Lord. “ Who will venture,” 
says Morus,t in reference to such passages from the Psalms, “to under- 
stand them as of universal application?’ The Apostle’s description, like 
that which he gives of the Gentiles in the first chapter, is evidently 
only of general application. It ought, however, to be considered, that 
although St. Paul conducts his argument with reference to the people 
as a body, which was sufficient for his purpose, yet the inference which 
he deduces is certainly true of every individual of mankind, on all 
of whom sin may justly be charged, though not all the particular sins 
here specified. 

The word “understandeth” in ver. 11, is like “knowing” in ii. 4, 
where see the note on p. 81.—“ Open sepulchre:” This is a figure for a 
source of corruption, venting itself in filthy or injurious language and 
calumny.—“ Way of peace :” that is, a religious course of life which brings 
along with it peace with God and one’s conscience, and happiness both here 
and hereafter. 


* This is a valuable Bible in Latin and French, with critical and historical notes, prefaces and 
dissertations, drawn from the works of Calmet, De Vence, and other distinguished French critica, 
The second edition was published at Paris, 1767-1773 in seventeen 4to volumes. 

+ Herm. Sac. tom. i. p. 257. 


4 


50 COMMENTARY ON THE |Sxcr. IV. 





is no fear of God before their eyes. TOV dG9aAuav abtGv. Oidayev 19 

19 Now we know, that what things so- 6é, drt doa 6 véjoc Aéyet, ToI¢ 
ever the law saith, it saith to them = év 7@ vépup Aarei, iva Trav oTOpa 
who are under the law; that every payq Kal brédiKo¢ yévyTae TAC 
mouth may be stopped, and all the 


19. The word “aw” in this verse is first used for the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament. Comp. John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25, and 1 Cor, xiv. 21. Immedi- 
ately afterwards it means the system of religion, or the dispensation embod- 
ied and delineated therein. The transition from the one meaning to the other 
is natural, and accords with analogy. The statement in the former half of 
the verse is evidently this, that the descriptions contained in the places 
quoted are intended of Jews. The quotations were certainly made in order 
to describe their general condition at different periods of their history ; and, 
as there is no evidence to show that the author intended any farther applica- 
tion, we have no right to assume any other. The Apostle’s remark may 
seem superfluous, as the citations are so palpably descriptive of the irreligion 
and wickedness of Hebrews. But national vanity and conceit would lead 
them to appropriate such statements to the despised Gentiles, as unworthy 
of the honourable descendants of Abraham. Some illustrations of the per- 
version of the plain meaning of Scripture may be seen in Jewish commen- 
tary on Isa. lii. 13—liii., of which I will cite one instance. Presuming the 
prophet’s representation of vicarious suffering to be unworthy both of 
himself and his people, the divine declarations to this effect are most 
unwarrantably, and in opposition to the whole context, supposed to be 
uttered by ignorant Heathens. Thus David Kimchi on ver. 4: “This is what 
the nations will say : truly he hath borne our grief and such like, and is their 
own language.” And on ver. 11, he remarks: “Thus far, the words of the 
nations; hereafter the words of God.” To the same effect, Jarchi and 
Aben Ezra, although they do not express their meaning so definitely.* 

“That :” or, so that. The particle introduces an inference from what 
has been before stated. If the latter half of this verse is applied exclu- 
sively to Jews, the language “every mouth” and “all the world” must 
be limited to them. And general expressions of this sort do occur in a 
restricted meaning, and this is always indicated by the context or nature 
of the case. But, in this instance, there is not sufficient reason for such a 
limitation. Although the words are intimately connected with the imme- 
diately preceding quotations, from which they ate undoubtedly an infer- 
ence; yet, they are probably intended to express also the result of all the 
preceding discussion ; namely, that man in general, both Gentiles and Jews, 
are proved to be guilty, and can offer no plea to arrest the divine judg- 


* See my Jewish Rabbies, Commentary on Isa, lii. 13—liii: pp. bot., 112, 123, 142. 


Cu. IIT. 19-21.] 


20 6 Kéapoc TO Se@. AvoTe && Ep- 
yov vounov od dtKkatwdjoerat 
aoa odpf évartov adtov: did 
yao vouov ériyvwotcg dapriac. 

21 Novi dé ywpi¢ vouov dtiKxato- 
obvn Beod Tepavépwrat, japtv- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 51 


world may beeome guilty before 
God. Therefore by the deeds of 20 
the law there shall no flesh be jus- 
tified in his sight: for by the law 
ts the knowledge of sin. 

But now the righteousness of God 21 


without the law is manifested, being 


ment.—“ Become guilty :” This must be understood declaratively, meaning 
‘appear and be acknowledged to be guilty.’ Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 7. 

20. “Therefore :” The conclusion is here drawn from the previous course 
of argument, and represented as one which is legitimate and incontroverti- 
ble: ‘by moral obedience no human being is justified.’ The connection 
makes it certain, that moral law is what is meant, not ceremonial, of which 
not a word has yet been said. Man is denoted by the term “ flesh,” be- 
cause it expresses him as he appears to be, and perhaps intimates also his 
frailty. It is here and often elsewhere employed to designate his whole 
being.— For by the law is the knowledge of sin:” Koppe, who under- 
stands the word law here in the same sense in which it is first used in verse 
19, explains this clause thus: ‘We know, on the contrary, that the sacred 
books themselves testify that all men are sinners.’ But the word law must 
have the same meaning as that in which it was just used, namely the 
perfect rule of man’s moral action, by virtue of obedience to which no man 
can claim justification in the sight of God. The connection between the 
former and latter clauses of this verse is too intimate, to allow us to go 
back, for the meaning of the term, to the first clause of verse 19. The 
Apostle here states with great brevity what he subsequently develops at 
large in the 7th chapter. The law awakens man to a proper knowledge 
of moral obligation, and to a suitable consciousness of his sinfulness. This 
is its legitimate province; to prepare the mind for a proper reception of 
the Gospel, rousing the man to a perception of his sins. It never was 
intended to become the ground or instrument of his justification. 

21-26. “But now:” This is evidently a designation of time, and not 
merely a form of transition. It refers to the accomplishment of God’s 
purpose by Christ, and corresponds with “this time” in verse 26, while 
it is set in contrast with the period of “the law and the prophets.”— 
“ Law” is used here in the samie sense, and “‘ God’s righteousness” also, as 
before. “The law and the prophets” is a phrase equivalent ‘to the whole 
religious dispensation of the Hebrews as embodied in the Pentateuch and 
the prophetical books.’ See Luke xvi. 16, with which comp. Matt. xi. 13. See 
also Matt. xxii. 40.—“ Witnessed :” Here, as elsewhere, the word implies 
favourable attestation. Comp. Luke iv. 22, Heb. xi. 2, 39.—The meaning 
of the whole verse is as follows: ‘ But now, in the Gospel, God’s method 


52 COMMENTARY ON THE [Szor. IV. 





witnessed by the law and the pro- povpévy b7d TOU vowov Kal TOY 

22 phets; even the righteousness of m™podyTa@v, Sikacooivy dé Yeov 22 
God, which is by faith of Jesus did miotewe "Inoov Xpiorod, ei¢ 
Christ, unto all and upon all them 7édvtac Kal émi mdvtag TovS 


of justification without regard to law and not dependent on it, is clearly 
manifested, and the Mosaic dispensation does itself bear ample testimony 
to its truth and importance.’ 

The nature of this method is now more particularly stated. It is ‘God’s 
method of justification by faith in Jesus Christ.’ The word faith is some- 
times used fur the Gospel system, this being its distinguishing characteris- 
tic, and very frequently for the principle in the mind of the believer. In 
the former sense it occurs in Gal. i. 23, iii. 23, 25, 1 Tim. v. 8; and in the 
latter too often to need reference. In this, also, it is very commonly used 
with the genitive of the object. See, among a multitude of instances, 
Mark xi. 22, “faith in God,” Oeod ; Eph, iii. 12, “ through faith in him,” 
adrov ; James ii. 1, “ faith of (én) our Lord, tod Kupiov jyev.” Comp. the 
use of the word in the same chapter of James, vs. 5, 14 et seq. The idiom 
is the same as the Hebrew, and it occurs in Isa. liii. 11, “his knowledge,” 
meaning ‘a proper knowledge of him, and frequently in other places. 
The former may possibly be its meaning here, and then the idea will be 
‘God’s justificdtion by means of the Gospel system.’ But this is very 
improbable, as the author immediately speaks of believers, and both before 
and after of faith as the principle in the mind and heart of such. 

“Unto all and upon all:” The three last words are omitted in several 
manuscripts and versions, while in many other authorities they are retained, 
As they seem to embarrass the sense, they were probably removed from 
the text by some ancient transcribers, who could not satisfactorily explain 
them. Thus it is easy to account for the omission, while for the same 
reason it would be difficult to explain the introduction of them; and con- 
sequently, the probability is in favour of their genuineness. Stuart con- 
siders the clause “upon all them that believe, as a kind of parenthesis, 
thrown in to guard against the idea that the actual bestowment of justifica- 
tion is as universal as the offers of it.” But it is very improbable that the 
word believers, so necessarily associated with the leading thought, should be 
placed in any but a prominent position; and if this word is not parentheti- 
cal the others cannot be. It has been said that the Apostle varies his pre- 
positions, without attaching to them a different meaning. This may some- 
times be the case. But Gal. i. 1, which has been referred to as proof, is 
not at all in point, as there is the strongest probability that each of the 
prepositions there used has its own distinet and appropriate signification, 
Here unto may refer to the offer of justification to all, and upon to the 
actual gift of it to believers; or, as is more probable, the two prepositions 


Cn. TIT. 22-24] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.  , 53 


23 meoretovrac. Ov yde éore dia- that believe: for there is no differ- 
OTOAH* TaVTEG yao TuapTov Kat ence; forall have sinned, and come 23 
dorepovvTat TIC JdEne TOU Yeod, short of the glory of God; being 24 

24 dixacotvuevor Swpedv TH advTov justified freely by his grace, 


and adjectives may be qualified by the word believers, and the meaning be, 
‘offered and given to all who possess the qualification of faith.’ 

Now, in accordance with one general thought which pervades the Epistle, 
namely, that the blessings of justification by faith are through the Gospel 
intended for all, the author remarks, that no difference is made between 
Jew and Gentile, for all are in the same condition, that of sinners. He 
does not mean that all are equally guilty; it is enough for his purpose that 
all must be classed in the same category, that of sinners, and consequently 
such as have no natural claim to the divine favour, which they have failed 
to deserve and obtain.—* The glory of God :” That is, his approbation, and 
the happiness both here and hereafter which shall be bestowed on those who 
secure it. This corresponds with the meaning of the word in various 
places. See John v. 44, xii. 43; also Rom. vy. 2, viii. 18.—“ Being justi- 
fied :” With the Greek participle, we may understand of eiot, who are, and 
translate both as a verb, or we may retain the participial construction. In 
the latter case, the most natural connection will be with the preceding 
verse, ‘all fail, or come short of God’s glory, being justified freely’ &c. In 
the former, the connection will be with ver. 22, the intermediate portion be- 
ginning with, “ for there is no difference,” being parenthetical, thus : ‘all be- 

ievers (who are) justified freely’ &c. This is the more probable arrangement. 
\ “ Redemption,” which is sometimes limited in its meaning, is here and 
elsewhere employed in its most extensive signification, comprehending 
complete ultimate liberation from sin and all its consequences. It occurs 
in the following places: Luke xxi. 28, here, Rom. viii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 30, 
Eph. i. 7, 14, iv. 30, Col. i. 14, Heb. ix. 15, xi. 35: In the last it is ren- 
dered in our translation “ deliverance.” —“ Freely :” Locke has a note on 
this verse which ought not to be passed over unnoticed. “ Redemption by 
Jesus Christ does not import (that) there was any compensation made to 
God by paying what was of equal value, in consideration whereof they 
(were) delivered; for that is inconsistent with what St. Paul expressly 
says here, viz. that sinners are justified by God gratis and of his free 
bounty.” It is true that sinners are so justified by God, but then it is also 
true, that this respects the payment of any compensation or equivalent 
by them ; and, moreover, whatever God chooses to accept may well be 
called an equivalent, and on this ground and also on that of its own suffi 
ciency to effect the end in view, Christ’s sacrifice was eminently so, See an 
excellent note of Whitby on Heb. x. 14. Mr. Locke proceeds: “ What this 
redemption is St. Paul tells us, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14. ‘even the forgiveness 


BA COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. IV. 


through the redemption that isin ydpite did tig droAvTpHoEwC 
25 Christ Jesus: whom God hath set Tij¢ év Xpiote "Inood, dv mpoé- 25 

forth to bea propitiation through Vero 6 Yedc iAaoripiov did Ti¢ 

faith in his blood, to declare his tiotewce év TO adrovd aipart, ei¢ 


of sins.” That redeeming, in the sacred Scripture language, signifies not 
precisely paying an equivalent, is so clear that nothing can be more. I 
shall refer my reader to three or four places amongst a great number, 
Ex. vi. 6, Deut. vii. 8, xv. 15, and xxiv. 18.” With respect to the passages 
in the epistles, it is sufficient to say, that the effect is evidently put for the 
cause. As to the texts of the Old Testament, they all relate to the same 
fact, the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and prove no more than 
this, that the word redeem is sometimes used in the sense of deliver merely, 
without any regard to its etymological force. With respect to the conclud- 
ing remark in the note under review, “that if we will strictly adhere to the 
metaphor, the price paid must be to those from whom we are redeemed, 
viz. sin and Satan; (Tit. ii. 14, ‘redeem us from all iniquity ;’) and that the 
price could not be paid to God in strictness of justice, unless the same per- 
son ought to have the thing redeemed, (Rev. v. 9, ‘hast redeemed to 
God,’) and the price paid ;” I consider the following as a sufficient answer. 
In Titus iniquity is plainly put for its effects, and these being under God’s con- 
trol, coming on the sinner through God’s permission and as a just punish- 
ment, and removeable by means which God alone could adopt and carry 
out, the redemption-price (to use a figurative term which ought to be em- 
ployed with suitable discretion,) may well be said to have been paid to 
God; and, inasmuch as God accepted it, may also be well said to have 
been satisfactory.* | 

“Set forth:” Wiclif has “ordeyned,’ and the marginal reading is 
“fore-ordained.” The sense of purposed is given by several commenta- 
tors, according to the meaning of the Greek noun in viii, 28, and the verb 
in Eph. i. 9. But the connection here, which speaks of God’s declaring, 
showing his righteousness, rather favours the idea of publicity, as given in 
our translation.—* A propitiation:” The original iAaorjpiov is properly 
an adjective agreeing with either éxi9eua or Ydua, cover or sacrifice, under- 
stood. In the former construction it is used for the golden cover of the 
ark on which the propitiatory blood was sprinkled by the high-priest on 
the day of atonement, whence its name, the Hebrew implying the idea of 


* Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica, published at Leipsic, 1822, (from which Dr. 
Robinson prepared the first edition of his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, Ando- 
ver, 1825,) seems to have bad in view some such objection as that of Locke, when under the word 
redemption, dzroAvtTpworc, he speaks of Christ, by laying down his life, paying as it were a ransom, 
and adds in brackets, Deo ne an diabolo? characterising the question and not inappropriately by the 
term inepte, It certainly is not in character with that wisdom which is often associated with the 
name of Locke, 


Cn. TIT. 25, 26.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 55 





evderéiv tig Stkatoobvng aitov, righteousness for the remission of 
dua tiv Tdpeoty THY Tpoyeyo- sins that are past, through the for- 

26 voTwY duaptnudT@r év TH dvox7} bearance of God; to declare, Tsay, 26 
Tod Veod, Tpog évdersry THC dt- at this time, his righteousness; 


covering over and of propitiating both. See Levit. xvi. 18-15, in Heb. 
and Sept. In Exod. xxv. 17, évi¥ewa is added to tAaorfpiov. Our Eng- 
lish translation uses the term “mercy-seat.” This may be regarded as a 
symbol of Christ, and he as our propitiation be denoted by the word. It 
has been objected that this exposition involves a confusion of figure, Christ 
being spoken of as the propitiatory or mercy-seat itself, and also in other 
places as the victim whose blood was sprinkled on it. To this it may be 
replied, that as the mercy-seat and the sprinkled blood were both typical 
of Christ, he may properly be described by either, as he is elsewhere 
represented as both priest and sacrifice. Still, it is well to avoid any such 
confusion of figure where it is unnecessary, and therefore 9%ya should be 
supplied, as is done by the best critics. The expiatory sacrifice of Christ 
will then be what the Apostle intends. 

“Through faith in his blood.” The blood of Christ is put for his suffer- 
ings and death, as in v. 9, and various other places, all of which become 
frigid on any other principle than that of the atonement. It conveys more 
than the simple idea of death. It is death undergone as expiation, in 
accordance with Heb. ix. 22, “without shedding of blood there is no 
remission,” and therefore almost always used to express his death as 
atoning. The attempt of Taylor of Norwich to identify the meaning of 
“the blood of Christ” with his “ perfect obedience and goodness,” certainly 
needs no refutation. The reader may see what this writer says in defence 
of his view by consulting his Key to the Apostolic Writings, sections 120, 
121, 122, prefixed to his Paraphrase with Notes on the Romans, 4to. Lon- 
don, 1745. A construction which would connect this phrase with the word 
propitiation is too harsh to be admitted without very strong reasons, which 
in the present case do not appear. The atoning death of Christ is the 
object of the faith here mentioned. I have before remarked on ver, 22, p. 
52, that the object of faith is frequently expressed in the genitive. This 
may be denoted as the first form, But others also occur. Secondly, the 
simple dative. See Matt. xxi. 25, 32, Rom. iv. 3, x. 16, Gal. iii. 6, 2 Tim. 
i. 12, Tit. iii. 8, James ii. 25, 1 John iii. 23,v. 10. Thirdly, the dative, with 
év. See Mark i. 15, Gal. iii. 26, Eph. i. 15, 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15. 
These agree with the passage before us. I do not refer to 2 Pet. i. 1, as it is 
at least exceedingly doubtful whether “ righteousness” is there the object of 
faith. Fourthly, the dative with émi. See Luke xxiv. 25, Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, 
1 Tim. i. 16, 1 Pet. ii. 6. Fifthly, the accusative simply. See John xi. 26, 
tovro and 1 Cor, xiii. 7. Sixthly, the accusative with elc. See Matt. 


56 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. IV. 





that he might be just, and the jus- Kalooivnc abtov év TO viv Kapa, 
tifier of him which believeth in ele 70 elvae adtov dixatov Kai 
27 Jesus. Where is boasting then? dtxacodvta Tov éx Tiotewe "In- 


xviii. 6, Mark ix. 42, John vi. 29, 35, 40, 47, Acts xx. 21, xxiv. 24, xxvi. 
18, Gal. ii. 16, Col. ii. 5. Seventhly, the accusative with émZ. See Acts 
xvi. 31, Rom. iv.5. And lastly, 76¢ with an accusative. See 1 Thess. i. 8. 
These are all the forms that appear in the New Testament. Kuinoel con- 
siders ded in Acts iii. 16 as connected with avrod him as the object of faith. 
But this is a mistake. Avdé means by and indicates Jesus as the author of 
the lame man’s faith. Its object is implied merely, not expressed. 

“To declare his righteousness:” literally, for the showing of it. Com- 
mentators differ respecting the meaning of righteousness in this verse. As 
the Greek word is sometimes used in the Septuagint for kindness, as in 
Gen. xx. 13, some have given it that signification here, ‘for the manifesta- 
tion of his benignity.’ And it has even been affirmed that, while strict 
justice and even severity is the prominent thought intended in ver. 25, 
kindness and favour are designated in the next. See Olshausen in loc. 
But this is an arbitrary distinction, and ought not to be assumed of the 
same term in so close a connection and introduced in so similar a way. 
In the New Testament the word is never used merely in this sense. The 
idea of kindness is sometimes implied, but some other properties necessary 
to constitute a sincerely religious character are always comprehended. 
And as the adjective “just” in ver. 26 has an evident reference to it, and is 
also as evidently antithetic to “justify,” the same general meaning must 
be conveyed by the noun, This may be identical with that in i. 17, iii. 21, 
God's method of justification. This method is manifested by the propiti- 
atory sacrifice of Christ through which sins are pardoned. But the most 
probable meaning is God’s justice, which is so strikingly displayed to the 
world in the atoning sufferings and death of Christ in honour of the divine 
law violated by human transgression. His sense of justice in respect to 
that law is shown, in his requiring satisfaction in order that he might remit 
punishment. Thus he is able to be just, and yet to justify, that is, to par- 
don and acquit the believer. “That he may be,” may mean, ‘that he 
may continue to be;’ or, probably, it is another instance of the declarative 
sense. Compare the conclusion of the note on ver. 19.—“ For,” or ‘on 
account of,’ “the remission of sins that are past.” The marginal reading, 
“passing over,’ is more literal, but it implies what the other directly 
affirms. ‘Past sins” are, no doubt, those of former times, whether com- 
mitted by Jews or Gentiles. Comp. Acts xvii. 30 and particularly Heb, 
ix. 15. “ For the remission” &¢, may be connected with the clatse “ faith in 
his blood,” the intermediate phrase being thrown in parenthetically. Then 
the idea will be, that God hath set forth Christ as a propitiation, by faith 


Cn. III. 27-29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 57 





27 cod. lod ody 7 Kabynowg ; It is excluded. By what law? of 
éLexAeiadn* dia roiov vouov; works? Nay; but bythe law of faith. 
tov épywv; ovyi, adAAd dtd Therefore we conclude that a man 28 

28 vouov tiotewe* AoyGoue9a ydp, is justified by faith without the 
dixatovodat tiotet dv3pwrov deeds of the law. Js he the God 29 

29 ywpic Epywv vouov. “H ’Iov- of the Jews only? is he not also 


in whose atoning sacrifice past sins, through the divine forbearance have 
been passed over, and consequently remitted. The idea in the parenthesis, 
being prominent in the author’s mind, is therefore immediately expressed, 
and afterwards repeated as the engrossing thought, God’s justice having 
now, through the Gospel plan, been conspicuously displayed, while at the 
same time he can, consistently with his moral character, justify the 
offender who believes. 

Tov &x tiotewe is equivalent to Tov moTeborTa, the believer. It is like 
ot é& épudeiac ii. 8, the contentious, of éx vouov, iv. 14, they that are of 
(meaning depend on) the law.—IIpd¢ #vdevécy in ver. 26 is evidently a re- 
sumption of ei¢ évderécy in the preceding one, and both are properly 
rendered in our English translation by the same phrase. In the former 
verse God’s righteousness is said to be manifested in reference to the for 
giveness of past sins through Christ’s atonement; in the latter, by showing 
that now in the Gospel dispensation, he can be just and yet justify the be- 
liever. But the two prepositions may well be regarded as exactly synony- 
mous, and the Apostle may vary his expressions without intending any 
change of meaning. We have an instance of this in the case of éx and dé 
in ver. 30. . 

27-30. St. Paul, having shown that justification, or a state of acceptable- 
ness with God, is naturally unattainable by either Gentile or Jew, because 
of the sinfulness of both, and therefore, if attainable at all, can be so only 
through God’s unmerited kindness, here declares what is now self-evident, 
namely, that human boasting or glorying is shown by the Gospel scheme 
of salvation to be wholly out of place. The word is probably chosen in al- 
lusion to the vain boastings of Jews in their superior advantages. See ii. 
17, iv. 2; and compare v. 2, 8, 11, which appear to be in designed contrast 
to such objects of boast or rejoicing —“ Law” is equivalent to a system of 
doctrine. Compare Isa. ii. 8, “ out of Zion shall go forth the law.” In 
analogy with this meaning, “judgment ” is used in Isa. xlii, 1,8, quoted in 
Matthew xii. 18, 20, for the religious system of the Gospel. It is this which, 
by setting aside man’s justification on the ground of moral obedience and pla- 
cing it solely on the ground of faith in Christ, removes all possible occasion 
of self-confidence.—In ver. 28 several authorities read obv, and others prob- 
ably of more weight yao. If the former reading be adopted, the meaning 
will be, ‘ we conclude therefore ;’ if the latter, ‘for we argue,’ or ‘ are per- 


58 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


[Secr. IV. V. 





of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gen- 

30 tiles also: seeing it is one God, 
which shall justify the circum- 
cision by faith, and uncircumei- 

31 sion through faith. Do we then 
make void the law through faith ? 
God forbid: yea, we establish” the 
law. 


daiwy 6 8edc povoy; obdyi Kal 
é0vdv ; val kal 29vdv. *Exei- 30 
mep tic 6 Bebe, b¢ SiKatHoet Te- 
pirouay &x miotews Kal dKxpoBv- 
oriav did Tij¢ Tiatewe. Nopov 31 
ovv Katapyoupev did Tig Tio- 
TEWC ; 2) yévoitto* GAAd vowov 
iordvopev. 


suaded, think,’ expressive of the result of reasoning. The latter is prefera- 
ble.—In ver. 30, “ circumcision” and “ uncircumcision” are abstracts for 
concretes, meaning Jews and Gentiles, as in ii. 26, and iv. 12. The prep- 
ositions é« and dé seem to be employed in the same sense and for the sake 
of variety. They are both used in reference to the same topic, justification. 
See v. 1, Gal. iii. 24, and ii. 16. In the latter text both occur. As the 
first preposition is used in connection with the Jews, the phrase é« tiotewe 
may stand in contradistinction to é« tepitopij¢e or éx vouov. See iv. 12, 
14, and especially 16. The article connected with the latter tiotewe indi- 
cates that the faith which justifies the Gentiles is the same as that which 
justifies the Jews. 

31. “Law” may here mean the Scriptures of the Old Testament, as 
the word is used in ver. 19. Then the sense will be this: ‘Does this doc- 
trine of justification by faith oppose the representations of the Scriptures ? 
On the contrary, it isin unison with and supported by them.’ And thus we 
shall have a very suitable introduction to the discussion in the next chap- 
ter, which shows that this doctrine was taught by David and exemplified in 
the person and history of Abraham, Stuart thinks “this exegesis quite 
plain.” Still the Apostle may employ the term in the sense of the moral 
law, and affirm that his doctrine of justification, so far from subverting, does 
in reality sustain it. It does so, by showing its spirituality, and the neces- 
sity of vindicating its character in demanding a reparation of its violated 
honour ; by making a knowledge of it requisite to convince a man of his 
sinfulness, and to bring him to receive the Gospel scheme by a living 
faith ; and as this very faith recognises the moral excellencies of the law, 
it constantly regards it as the rule of life, and consequently establishes its 
obligation. These thoughts the Apostle afterwards more fully develops. 
See v. 20, vii. 7 et seq., Gal. iii. 24. Whether the author’s doctrine can 
properly be said to establish God’s law or not, depends upon the sense in 
which its establishment is to be understood. 


Cu. III. 30-IV. 2.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 59 





SECTION V. 


Cuar. IV. 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVED AND APPLIED BY THE INSTANCE OF ABRAHAM, 


IV. Ti ovv épotpev; “ABpadu tov What shall we say then? that IV. 
Tatépa mua evpnxévat kata Abraham our father, as pertaining 
2 odpxa; Ei yae’ABpadu é épywv to the flesh, hath found? Forif 2 


Cuap. iv. 1. This verse is susceptible of different shades of meaning, 
according to the punctuation adopted. It may be read continuously, as in 
our authorised version, which follows Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva and 
Rheims translations. Or the first two words may be separated from the 
remainder, thus: ‘What then? shall we say’ &c. And, with both these 
punctuations, 7é may be rendered either what or how, But it is more in 
accordance with the style of the Epistle to put the interrogation point after 
Epovjev, thus: ‘ What shall we say then? See iii. 5, vi. 1, vii. 7, viii. 31, 
ix. 14,30. And Wiclif seems to have intended this division, if I may 
judge from Bagster’s reprint in his English Hexapla: “ What thanne schuln 
we seie: that abraham oure fadir aftir the fleisch foonde:” Grotius and 
Le Clere adopt this punctuation. And it appears quite natural and proba- 
ble, particularly as the Rabbinical formula, =7a775 N5"s “ya, what is here to 
say, (or to be said,) accords exactly with the Apostle’s words. See Suren- 
husius, or Buxtorf’s Hebrew Abbreviations under &1a, p. 126, Basil. 16380, 
and Lexicon Chal. Talmud. et Rabbin., Basil. 1630, col. 81, top.—It having 
been proved that the Jew cannot claim justification on the ground of moral 
obedience, the Apostle very naturally inquires, what then is to be said or 
done? Is connection with Abraham to be claimed and appealed to? Did 
he find acceptance with God kata odoexa, according to the flesh ? 

The connection and meaning of these last words have also been the sub- 
ject of no little discussion. They are often associated with Abraham, thus: 
“our father according to the flesh,” that is, in the course of nature. But 
their position in the sentence will not allow this, and some old transcribers 
of manuscripts, feeling this difficulty, have unwarrantably altered the 
arrangement of the Greek. In addition to this objection, it may also be 
urged, that, on this exposition, the words are unnecessary, and add nothing 
to the sense; and, moreover, that, although they are often used of lineal 
descent, they never occur in reference to ancestry. It is not to be supposed 
that the Apostle would have used them merely to round off a sentence. 


60 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. V. 


Abraham were justified by works, ¢@dcxaridn, byer Kabynua, a22’ 
he hath whereof to glory; but not od mpd¢ Tov Yedv. Ti ydp H 3 


They, most probably, designate something external, some supposed out- 
ward advantage, especially such a one as circumcision was thought to be. 
In this sense, the word “flesh” is not unfrequently used, as in Phil. iii. 4, 
where “confidence in the flesh” is illustrated by various external particu- 
lars of superiority which the author might claim over those possessed by 
many others, The prominent thought here is certainly that of Abraham’s 
covenant relation to God sealed by the rite of circumcision. It may be 
allowed that, “in the immediate context, the Apostle is showing, not the 
inefficacy of circumcision to secure the patriarch’s acceptance with God, 
but the inefficacy of his works in general.”* This is undoubtedly true; 
and the quotation from the Psalm immediately afterwards made shows 
that it is the moral law which he there refers to, the breach of which re- 
quired forgiveness. But although this is true of the immediate context, 
it is no less true, as appears from the subsequent verses, that the cireum- 
cision of Abraham is the point which he has in mind, and which he brings 
forward very prominently. I conclude, therefore, that the most probable 
meaning of the verse may be expressed as follows: ‘Since all reason- 
able expectation of justification by moral obedience is cut off as well 
from the Jew.as the Gentile, what shall we say? Shall we appeal to Abra- 
ham, our illustrious progenitor, and say that he found acceptance with 
God by any thing external, especially his circumcision? Shall we thus 
attempt to support a claim to the divine favour ? 

2,3. No direct reply to the question is given, but the negative is 
plainly implied. ‘Certainly not, for if Abraham were justified by works 
he had what he might well boast of or rejoice in.’ For the meaning of 
kabvynua see the note on Heb, iii.6. The connection and bearing of the 
next words are somewhat uncertain The meaning has been given by 
some thus, ‘still his boast or rejoicing would only be before men. With 
God he would have no such right, as even then he would have done no 
more than his duty.’ But it is not probable that such a case would be 
presumed, which in the present fallen state of human nature is not to be 
expected. If a fallen man could be supposed to claim acceptance on the 
ground of perfect obedience, it might well be a question whether he had 
not done more than his duty in his fallen condition, and consequently 
whether he had not a legitimate cause of rejoicing and self-gratulation. 
But such speculations are useless, and wholly inconsistent with the simpli- 
city and practical character of St. Paul’s mode of thinking and writing. 
Abraham, of course, had a right to challenge the honour of men; but in 
the point of his justification, he, like others, failed in that perfect obedience 


* Tholuck, as translated from his early edition, 


Cx. IV. 8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 61 





ypap Aéyer; eriorevoe OE before God. For what saith the 3 
"ABpadu TO VEG, kat EAoyioSn Scripture? Abraham believed God, 


which alone could give a claim with God. This meaning coincides with 
what immediately follows: ‘the Scripture ascribes his justification to his 
faith.” See Gen. xv. 6. “It was counted unto him for righteousness :” 
that is, ‘his faith was regarded as available to his justification.” Nothing 
but one’s faith is ever said to be thus “counted” or reckoned. or does 
not mean znséead of, implying that faith was substituted in the place of 
righteousness. It may be explained by as: ‘his faith was regarded as 
justifying.” The Hebrew in Genesis has nothing to correspond; it is 
simply, “he counted it to him righteousness.” In Ps. evi. 31, we have a 
similar expression. There for is the translation of the Hebrew Zamed, 
which every tyro in the language knows is an idiomatic form of expression, 
and the omission of which would not alter the sense. 

In his remarks on the subject of justification, the Apostle uses the follow- 
ing language, the meaning of which ought to be very clearly understood. 
He speaks of faith being counted or reckoned or imputed for righteousness, 
of God’s imputing righteousness, and of righteousness being imputed. See 
vs. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24. The word righteousness in this connection 
is often explained of Christ’s perfect religiousness, his holy and practical 
obedience to the divine law; and this is said to be imputed to the believer, 
that is, made over to him and regarded as his, by which imputation he is 
considered as having rendered a perfect obedience, although in reality it was 
rendered by Christ. Thus he is justified, the works of Christ being accounted 
ashis. This is supposed to be what is meant by “God’s imputing right- 
eousness—that righteousness might be imputed ;” that is, that Christ’s 
moral obedience might be accounted as the obedience of the justified man 
in consequence of his faith. A careful examination of all the texts con- 
nected with this subject has compelled me to abandon this view, which for 
many years in early life I regarded as true and scriptural. There is no 
passage in this chapter where the word righteousness, dtkatoobyy, occurs in 
this sense. It always means justification, Dr. Robinson says that “ the 
righteousness of faith so reckoned to believers, is according to Paul the 
ground or occasion of their justification ‘ before God.’” Lex. under duxat- 
oovvn, 2, b) B) (2), p. 184. I would rather say, it is their justification 
itself. Justification is one prominent topic of the Epistle, and particularly 
in this chapter. In the Greek the verb justify and the noun righteousness 
are radically the same, and the connection of both would have been better 
preserved, if the noun had been translated justification. Then we should 
have had in vs. 2, 3, justified and justification ; so also in ver. 5, and justi- 
jication in vs. 6, 9, 11 twice, 138 and 22. The word rendered impute 
means, to account or reckon to, to place to one’s account, to regard as be- 


62 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. V. 


oo 





and it was counted unto him for a@v7@ el¢ dixacocivnv. Te dé 4 
4 righteousness. Now to him that épyagouévm 6 jwadd¢ ob Aoyi- 
worketh is the reward not reckoned eTat kata ydpiv, dAdd Kara 
5 of grace, but of debt. But tohim  dpetAnua: 7@ dé j7) Epyagouévw, 5 
that worketh not, but believeth on muorebovte d& éni tov dtKat- 
him that justifieth the ungodly, his odvta tov doe3i, AoyiseTat 7} 


longing to. A due attention to the meaning of the two words, will, I think, 
determine that of every passage in the chapter wherein they occur. Thus, 
in vs. 3, 5, 9, 22, 23, 24, ‘his faith was reckoned to him as justification.’ 
Stuart indeed says on ver, 6, that this “makes no tolerable sense.” But 
it makes a very clear and good sense. We may either regard the noun as 
the abstract for the concrete, justification for that which justifies ; or as used 
for its instrument or condition, according to the terms of the Gospel. Then 
the language will be similar to that of 1 John v, 4, “ this is the victory that 
overcometh the world, our faith,” which evidently means that faith is the 
principle whereby the victory is gained: thus faith would have a similar 
relation to justification. In ver. 6, we may read, ‘unto whom God reckon- 
eth justification,’ maketh it over to his account; that is, whom he regards 
as justified. In ver. 11, “the righteousness of the faith” is equivalent to 
‘the justification which is from faith ;’ and, “that righteousness might be 
imputed unto them also” conveys this thought, ‘ that justification might be 
accounted to them,’ or regarded as theirs. In ver. 13, the promise is said 
to be ‘through the justification which is of faith.’ Hence it follows that, 
whether faith is said to be reckoned unto a man for justification or justifiea- 
tion is said to be reckoned unto him, the idea is the same in each case ; in 
the one, his faith is represented as availing to his justification ; in the other, 
justification is represented as made over to him on the condition of his faith, 
But in no ease is the obedience of another said to become his by imputa- 
tion. The reader will do well to examine Whitby’s discourse subjoined 
to 1st Corinthians. Commentary, fifth edition, Lond. 1727, fol. vol. JI. pp. 
217 et seq.* 

4,5, Verse four lays down a general principle, which would apply in this 
case were its application possible. In the next,—‘ him that worketh not” 
is emphatic. It implies that he doth not work with the view of securing 
his justification thereby ; to obtain this he believes. In the language of the 
Homily on Salvation, “ faith excludeth good works, so that we may not do 
them ¢o this intent, to be made just by doing of them.” So in ver. 14, 
“they who are of the law” does not denote Jews merely, but Jews who 
depend on the law as the means of attaining the blessing referred to.—The 


* I am aware that Mr. Haldane on iii, 21, affirms that “the word translated righteousness does not 
signify justification.” But the statements of this dogmatical writer arc not always to be relied on, 
or his censures to be regarded. 


Cx. IV. 4-7.] 


miotic avtov ele dtkacoobyny, 
Kaddrep Kat Aavid Aéyet Tov 
pakapltouov Tod dvdpdrov, @ 6 
Bede Aoyigerat Sikaocbyyny yw- 
pig épywv: juaxdpior, ov adé- 
Syoav ai dvopiat Kal Ov éreKka- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


faith is counted for righteousness. 
Even as David also describeth the 
blessedness of the man unto whom 
God imputeth righteousness with- 
out works, saying, Blessed are 
they whose iniquities are forgiven, 


phrase “him that justifieth the ungodly” is not merely a periphrasis for 
God. It refers to him as the sinner’s justifier, and the faith implied must 
act upon him in this character, and thus it becomes available to the be- 
liever’s justification. So in ver. 24, “ belief on him that raised up Jesus” 
comprehends faith in his resurrection, and consequently in all the important 
doctrines connected with it. 

6-8. See Ps. xxxii. 1,2. ‘“ Describeth the blessedness :” properly, pro- 
nounces or declares to be happy. Compare Gal. iv. 15, ‘the felicitating 
of yourselves.’ It implies a condition of happiness. This blessed condi- 
tion is that of forgiveness of sins, which are not reckoned to the transgressor. 
David is said to describe the happy state of the justified man, and the 
quotation makes it consist in his having been pardoned. Hence two con- 
clusions are evidently deducible; first, that this state of acceptance with 
God, which the Psalmist so highly eulogizes, is not the consequence of a 
perfect obedience, for it is the state of a pardoned sinner; and secondly, 
that justification and forgiveness of sins mean the same thing. In confir- 
mation of the last remark, the reader is referred to the language of St. 
Paul in the synagogue of Pisidia. “ ‘Through this man is preached unto you 
the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all 
things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Acts 
xiii. 38, 39. What is the meaning of being justified from things, but ab- 
solved from charges? The idea that justification, in the Apostle’s view of 
it, is something over and above a state of forgiveness which comprehends, 
of course, what upon Gospel principles and promises belongs to such a 
state, is unfounded. The pardoned is also a justified man, cleared and 
acquitted of all charges which may at any time have been brought against 
him. 

In order to illustrate the consistency of this view of justification with that 
of our own church, I annex the following quotations from the Homily on the 
Salvation of Mankind. “Every man of necessity is constrained to seek for 
another righteousness of justification to be received at God’s own hands, that 
is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath 
offended.—They which in act or deed do sin after their baptism, when they 
turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from 
their sins in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be im- 
’ puted to their damnation. This is that justification of righteousness which St. 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Secr. V. 


and whosesins are covered; blessed AbpYnoav ai duaptiar- paKkd- 8 
is the man to whom the Lord will pto¢ dvie, © od pur) Aoyionrat 
not impute sin. Cometh this bless- Képtog duapriav. ‘O pana- 9 


edness then upon the circumcision 
only, or upon the uncircumcision 
also? for we say that faith was 


piono¢ obv obtoc éxi tiv TeEpt- 
Tounv, 7) Kal éxi tiv dKpoBv- 
atiav; Aéyouev yde, bru etho- 


Paul speaketh of when he saith, no man is justified by the works of the 
law, &c.; and again, we be justified freely, &e.—The sum of all Paul’s dis- 
putation is this; that if justice come of works, &c. And, as St. Peter saith, 
of Christ all the prophets do witness that through his name all they that 
believe in him shall receive the remission of sins. And after this wise to be 
justified” &c.—And, after quoting from St. Ambrose the words “ without 
works, by faith only, freely we receive remission of our sins,” the Homily 
adds: “ These and other like sentences, that we be justified by faith only, 
we do read oft times in the best and most antient writers.”—Afterwards 
we meet with this language: “In this matter of forgiving of sin—by 
Christ we have remission of our sins or justification.” And in the third 
part of the sermon we have the following language: ‘ Our own works do 
not justify us; to speak properly of our justification ; that is to say, our 
works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins, and make us of unjust 
just before God; but God of his own mercy through the only merits and 
deservings of his son Jesus Christ doth justify us. Nevertheless because 
faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by 
faith given us of God we embrace the promise of God’s mercy and of the 
remission of our sins, therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith with- 
out works doth justify.”—It is undeniable that the Homily represents for- 
giveness of sins and justification as identical ; and the Homily expresses 
the doctrine of the Church of England. 

9-12. In this portion of the chapter, the author shows that the happy 
state of justification of which the Psalmist speaks, and which Abraham had 
secured, is attainable by both Jew and Gentile on the same one condition 
of faith. “ Circumcision” and “ uncircumcision” are abstracts for concretes, 
meaning, as before iii. 30, Jews and Gentiles.—* For we say :” For is illa- 
tive, and the language elliptical. ‘Is this blessed state peculiar to Jews, 
or may it be attained also by Gentiles? Then the idea implied is, ‘ by 
Gentiles also, as I now proceed to show; for I say,’ &c. This introduces 
the argument, and is a formula common with the Rabbies. See Suren- 
husius, ubi sup. p.12. -Abraham’s faith was available to his justification 
before his circumcision, and he received this rite as a sign and seal, (that 
is, as the words mean, an external attestation both to himself and all oth- 
ers who should know of its reception,) of his justification by the faith which 
he had before his circumcision. For this sense of seal, see 1 Cor. ix. 2, 


Cn. IV. 8-11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 65 





yiodn TO ’ABpadu 7 Tiott¢ el¢ veckoned to Abraham for 1éghteous- 10 
10 dexatooévnv. dc ovv éAoyi- ness. How was it then reckoned ? 
adn; &v mepitouy dvtt, 7} év when he was in circumcision, or 
axpoBvotia; ovK év TeptTouaA, in uncircumcision ? Not in circum- 
11 GAW év dxpoBvotia. Kat on7- cision, but in uncircumcision. And 11 
petov EAaBe tTrepitouic, ofpa- he received the sign of circumcision, 
yida tig dtKatoobync tij¢ Tio- aseal of the righteousness of the 
Tews TIS Ev TH akpoBvoria, ei¢ faith which he had yet being un- 
TO elvat adtov ratépa mdvTwY circumcised; that he might be the 
TOY mTLoTEvovTwy dv’ daKpoBv- father of all them that believe, 
otiac, (ei¢ TO Aoyso87jvat Kat though they be not circumcised ; 


and John vi. 27. This is so plainly the Apostle’s meaning, that it would 
be superfluous to add one word of exposition. Instead of the genitive “ of 
circumcision” in ver. 11, several ancient authorities read the accusative. 
But this is doubtless a gloss introduced by some transcriber who did not 
understand the idiom. The genitive is exegetical. ‘‘ The sign of circum- 
cision” is equivalent to ‘the sign, that is circumcision,’ just as, in 2 Cor. v. 
5, “the earnest of the Spirit” probably means, ‘the Spirit who is the ear- 
nest.’—“ The righteousness (justification) of the faith which :” The English 
and the Greek both are here ambiguous, Which may refer either to jus- 
tification or to faith, and in either case the meaning be in accordance with 
the context. Professor Stuart thinks “that it should be referred to the 
compound idea designated by” both the words. The collocation of the ar- 
ticle in the Greek favours the construction, ‘ which faith he had ;’ and its 
correctness is sustained by the concluding words of ver. 12, “ that faith 
which he had,” —“ That he might be :” The original might be rendered, ‘ so 
that he might be.’ But the common translation is preferable, as it gives 
a reason for this divine arrangement. Abraham’s faith and consequent 
justification preceded his circumcision; and one reason for this was, that 
he might be the spiritual parent of all believers, even those who had not 
been circumcised. Avd, through, here has the meaning of notwithstand- 
ing, as in ii. 27.—In ver. 12, Koppe puts a colon after “ father of circum- 
cision.” He considers all the rest of the verse as referring to the Gentiles. 
He is induced to adopt this view by ver. 16. But this makes a mere rep- 
etition of what had been said in the latter part of the preceding verse, where 
the Gentiles are plainly spoken of. It is better to regard this portion as 
referring to Jews, and as stating the condition without which not even they 
ean claim spiritual connection with Abraham; namely, the imitation of 
that faith which governed the life and conduct of the patriarch. Jewish 
writers frequently speak of circumcision as a seal and sign, and of Abraham 
as the father of the faithful. See Tholuck in loc. The dative tozc imme- 
diately following the genitive ep:tou7¢ is an instance of that looseness of 
5 


66 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. V. 





that righteousness might be im- adrole tiv dikacooivny,) Kai 12 

12 puted unto them also: and the matépa mepiTopijc, Toig ovK be 
father of circumcision, to them who TepiTouij¢ wovov, dAAd Kal Tot¢ 
are not of the circumcision only, oTotyovou Toic lyveot THg &v 
but who also walk in the steps of dxpoBvotia riatewe Tov TaTpd¢ 
that faith of our father Abraham, 7ju@v ’ABpadu. Ov yap dud 13 
which he had, being yet uncircum- 


construction which isnot unusual in Hellenistic Greek. Either case would 
grammatically connect with mavépa. 

13. As the idea conveyed in this connection by the expressions law, cir- 
cumcision, according to the flesh or what is merely external, is in general the 
same, the Apostle continues his argument in reference to Abraham by the 
illative particle “for,” which, in this view, refers to what immediately pre- 
eedes. Or it may be logically connected with ver. 10, thus: ‘as the pro- 
mise was made to Abraham before he was circumcised, it was not by law, 
but by justification through faith.’ 

The first point of inquiry is the meaning and application of the word 
“seed” in this verse. Its usual meaning is progeny, descendants, subject 
however to such modifications and restrictions as the context in which it 
occurs may require. That here it does not embrace all Abraham’s 
descendants is self-evident; and the nature of the discussion shows that it 
does not even comprehend all his descendants through Israel. _ It must be 
limited to his spiritual progeny, the faithful. But in what sense can it be 
said, that to these a promise was made of being heir or lord or possessor 
(for this is the import of the Greek,) of the world? Some have attempted 
to limit the meaning of the word to the land of Canaan. Thus Schleusner 
under kéopuoc, No. 5, and Wahl. 2, b) (8). But it never has this limited 
signification, and the texts referred to by these lexicographers as proof are 
wholly unsatisfactory.—Others consider the language as expressive merely 
of the vast number of Abraham’s offspring.—Others, of the dissemination 
and general extension of true religion, all believers being regarded as 
Abraham’s children. Macknight to this objects that “the inheritance was 
promised to Abraham’s seed” as well as to himself. If then by the world 
is meant the whole body of believers, they will be identified with the seed, 
which consequently becomes lord of itself. To this it may be replied, that 
the prophets often speak of the earlier spiritual descendants of Abraham, 
the former Israel, inheriting the Gentiles, that is incorporating them into 
Messiah’s kingdom along with themselves. See Isa. liv. 8, and Amos ix. 
12, where the words “ inherit” and “ possess,” are translations of the same 
Hebrew term. ‘Thus they are represented as taking possession of the con- 
verts to Christ, and in proportion as his kingdom extends in the world, 
Abraham’s spiritual progeny become lord of it. In this way the vast 


Cu. IV. 12, 13.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 67 
vojov h erayyeAia TO ’ABpadu ised. For the promise that he 13 
TO orrépuate avtov, TO KAnpo- should be the heir of the world, 
vouov avrov elvat K6ou0v, GAA was not to Abraham, or to his seed, 
through the law, but through the 





number of this seed of the patriarch will be a prominent thought of the 
Apostle, which in ys. 15-17 he explicitly states—Others again have re- 
garded the expression as an amplification of the promises contained in 
Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 15, xv. 7, xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18, and xxvi. 4; or rather 
a development of their full meaning, as springing from the typical rela- 
tion of the possession of the promised land to the enjoyment of the 
heavenly inheritance. See Heb. iii. 11, and note, pp. 57, 58. Accord- 
ing to this view, it will relate to that universal empire, which was 
promised by the prophets to Abraham’s posterity through the Messiah. 
Compare the texts just referred to in Isaiah, Amos, and also other simi- 
lar places. In whatever light this empire was regarded by the Jews, 
it was no doubt spiritual in its nature, and involves the universal ex- 
tension of the true church of God in its real moral and spiritual char 
acter. 

But, in order to form a right judgment of the extent of meaning com 
prehended within the promise, it is necessary, as a second principal point 
of inquiry to examine carefully the parallel place in Gal. iii. 16, so far as 
relates to the same word “seed” as there employed. The Apostle de 
clares that it is not used of “many but of one which is Christ.” And yet 
most undoubtedly he does not mean to limit its signification to Christ 
personally and individually considered, but comprehends under the term 
all who are spiritually united to him, and thus constitute his ‘ fulness.” 
See Eph. 1.23. This is plain both from the discussion in Galatians, and 
from the last verses of the chapter: “Ye are all one (man, eé¢,) in Christ 
Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs 
according to the promise.” His meaning is evident. The one seed or 
progeny of Abraham in contradistinction to the many, is Christ regarded 
as the head of his truly faithful members and therefore comprehending 
them, in contradistinction to the various races and classes of persons that 
sprang from the patriarch as their natural progenitor. This view of the 
subject is in harmony with the representation, which pervades the New 
Testament, of the intimate union of Christ and his true church. There is 
then no occasion to limit the natural comprehensive meaning of the words 
“heir (or lord) of the world.” In reference to Christ they imply universal 
supremacy ; in reference to Abraham or any individual member of the 
mystical body, they must be restricted to such blessings here and hereafter 
as belong to the individual by virtue of such connection—When the 
Apostle says, that the promise was made through or by or in consequence 





14 righteousness of faith. For if they 
which are of the law be heirs, faith 
is made void, and the promise made 

15 of none effect: because the law 
worketh wrath; for where no law 

16 is, there zs no transgression. There- 


68 COMMENTARY ON THE 


[Secr. V. 


bua Sikatocbyng miotewc. Ei 14 
yde of &« vomov KAnpovdmot, 
kexévorat 7) ThoTic Kal KaThp- 
ynrat i emayyedia’ 6 yap vomog 15 
dpyjv Katepydgerar: ob yde 
ov« Lote vomoc, obdE TapadBaatc. 


of the justification which comes by faith, the language shows that his mind 
rests on the blessings intended for Abraham and his spiritual progeny in 
general. In reference to Christ it would be inappropriate.—Expressions 
like that here used by Paul are employed by Jewish writers respecting 
Abraham. See Wetstein, Tholuck, Koppe, in loc. 

14, 15. “They that are of the law:” This phrase is interpreted by some 
of “those who enjoy the privilege of living under the law.” So Stuart in 
loc. But, if this be the meaning, it must be modified by introducing, as 
the Professor does, the qualifying terms “only” and “ without walking in 
the steps of Abraham as to faith.” It cannot mean simply Jews, all the 
pious and believing of whom were undoubtedly heirs. Most probably it 
describes those who were connected with and depended on the law; as in 
Gal. iii. 7, 9, “ they that are of faith,” is equivalent to true believers, and 
in v. 24, ‘they that are of Christ,” to such as are really and spiritually 
united to him. Thus the Apostle’s remark is true and important. ‘If they 
who look for justification through the law whether ceremonial or moral, 
become thereby heirs of the heavenly inheritance, faith is superseded and 
useless, and the promise becomes good for nothing.’ This is a necessary 
conclusion, for the inheritance was originally “given by promise,” as the 
author expressly asserts in Gal. iii, 18. In the next verse he proceeds to 
state that this happy result of justification and heirship cannot come 
through law, which inflicts punishment on its transgressor. He then adds 
as a general principle, that transgression implies law and cannot exist 
without it; a principle which the Apostle elsewhere lays down in other 
terms, (see. v. 13 and vii. 8,) and which is true in its most unlimited extent, 
although he may not always intend an unlimited application. 

16, 17. “Therefore:” This may mean, either consequent upon or 
consistently with what has been said. The benefit referred to comes by 
faith, and thus is according to favour. The Zva is most likely ecbatic and 
not telic; in other words, it rather expresses the fact than the direct inten- 
tion. With kata ydptv compare ver. 4. Now follows the reason why the 
benefit comes by faith, namely, that the promise, meaning the blessing 
promised, might be secured to the whole seed, that is, the whole body of 
Abraham’s spiritual progeny, the faithful, whether they be Jews or Gen- 
tiles. The word only plainly implies, that the portion of “the seed which 
is of the law” is regarded by the Apostle as secure of the accomplishment 


Cx. IV. 14-17] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 69 





16 Arad rovTo &x Tiotewe, iva KaTa fore tt is of faith, that it might be 
xapy, ei¢ TO elvat BeBaiav tv dy grace; to the end the promise 
énayyediav Tavtt T@ onépuatt, might be sure to all the seed; not 
od TO Ek TOV VOWoV pdvoV, dAAG to that only which is of the law, 
kat T@ €k Tiotewe ’ABpadu, 6¢ but to that also which is of the 

17 gore nario TavTwY jusy,(KaI@¢ faith of Abraham, who is the father 


of the promise ; and therefore the phrase “ of the law” cannot have exactly 
the same meaning here as in ver. 14, but must denote Jewish believers. 
These are a part of the patriarch’s spiritual progeny, and are here placed 
in contradistinction to the Gentile believers, expressed by the next clause, 
“but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham.” The word also 
marks something additional to what had just been said, and therefore the 
clause containing it must be understood with such limitation; otherwise it 
might be regarded as expressive of Jewish and Gentile believers. All 
these are comprehended within the terms of both the clauses, and Abra- 
ham is represented as the spiritual father of all the faithful. The meaning 
may be expressed thus: ‘To the entire holy progeny, not to that portion 
of it only who are Jews, participating in the benefits of the law, but to 
those also who, although they have not the law, possess the same principle 
of faith which Abraham had.’ As applicable to this last statement, the 
Apostle quotes from Gen. xvii.5: “I have made thee a father of many 
nations.” It is true that this was a promise of numerous posterity, who 
should establish themselves as various nations in the earth. But there is 
no reason to limit the promise to this meaning. It does not preclude a 
reference to the patriarch’s numerous spiritual progeny, and in this latter 
sense does St. Paul apply it. The first part of the 17th verse, including 
the quotation, should be placed in a parenthesis, and the words that follow 
read in connection with the last clause of the 16th, thus: ‘ Who is the 
father of us all before God in whom he believed.” This makes a clear 
and intelligible sense: however Abraham may be regarded by the Jews 
or by men in general, in the view of God he is the spiritual father of all 
believers, Gentiles as well as Jews. “Kartévayte ov ériotevoe Seov, by 
attraction for kat. Yeod © ériotevoe.” Robinson under the first word. The 
description now given of God as he who quickeneth, &c., may refer to the 
extraordinary birth of Isaac in the extreme old age of his parents, 
(see ver. 19,) and also to the state in which the Gentiles are said to have 
been before their conversion to the Gospel contrasted with their subse- 
quent condition. See 1 Pet. ii. 10. But undoubtedly it is also a 
description of God’s majesty, drawn from his power as exercised in crea- 
tion and resurrection. ‘Qe évta may be equivalent to el¢ 76 elvat, so as 
to be, and then the meaning will be, who commands what does not exist to 
come into being. But as the language is antithetic, things that are not 


70 
17 of us all, (as it is written, I have 
made thee a father of many nations,) 
before him whom he believed, even 
God, who quickeneth the dead, and 
calleth those things which be not 
18 as though they were. Who against 
hope believed in hope, that he 
might become the father of many 
nations, according to that which 
was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 
19 And being not weak in faith, he 
considered not his own body now 
dead, when he was about a hun- 
dred years old, neither yet the 
20 deadness of Sarah’s womb; he 
staggered not at the promise of 
God through unbelief; but was 
strong in faith, giving glory to God, 
21 and being fully persuaded that 
what he had promised, he was 
22 able also to perform. And there- 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. V. VL 


yéypanrar* bre matépa TOAAGY 
édvov tédenKd oe,) Katévavtt 
ov éniatrevoe Yeov, Tow Cworrot- 
ovvTog Tove veKpod¢ Kal Ka- 
Aovvro¢g Ta pe) bvTa we dvTa. 
"Oc map’ eamida em’ éaridt 18 
értorevoey, ele TO yevéodat av- 
Tov Tatépa TOAAOY ESVOV, KaTa 
TO elpnuévov: ottw¢e tora TO 
orépa cov: Kal jn) dadevijoac 19 
TH Tiore: od Katevonoe TO éav- 
TOV Opa 7}6n veveKpwpéevor, éKa- 
Tovraétne Tov DTapYwr, Kal TIV 
véKpwotv THe uATpac Ladppac, ei¢ 20 
d& tiv énayyediav tov VYeovd 
od dtexpidn tH admoTia, GAd 
évedvvapadn tH Tote, dove 
ddfav TH Yeo, Kal tANpomopn- 21 
Veic, Ott 6 éxhyyeAtat, dvvatog 
éott kal Totjoat. Awd Kai édo- 22 
yiodn atta ei¢g Sikaocbyny. 


and things that are most probably denote also what is comparatively of 
no worth and importance, and what is most valuable and distinguished. 
18-21, “ Against hope:” that is, against all human and ordinary pro- 


bability, in view of the advanced age of himself and his wife, and their 
heretofore childless condition.—‘“So shall thy seed be:” Gen. xv. 5, 
This is an imperfect quotation, a method of citing the Old Testament very 
usual with Jewish writers. See Surenhusius, p. 49, and Aben Ezra in 
Jewish Rabbies, p. 139 with note §. The comparison is with the stars, which, 
as well as the sand, were used to express vast multitudes. Ov katevdnoe, 
“he considered not:” Two very important manuscripts, the Syriac and 
Coptic versions, and some other authorities omit the negative particle. 
Olshausen defends the omission, which he says gives to dé in ver. 20 its 
proper meaning. In this case, the Apostle’s representation will be that 
Abraham with full consideration of the natural difficulties attendant on the 
fulfilment of the divine promise, nevertheless did not in the least distrust it. 
If the negative be retained, the patriarch will be represented as disregard- 
ing all the difficulties though fully seen and appreciated, in consequence of 
the living character of his faith Staggered not:” did not hesitate at 
or waver respecting.—* Able :” God’s willingness is, of course, implied as 
an object of Abraham’s faith. 

23-25. That Abraham’s faith became available to his justification was 
not recorded in Scripture merely to eulogize the patriarch, but to give us 


Cu. IV. 18-V. 2.] 


23 Ovn eypddn dé dv adrov pévor, 

24 dre éhoyiodn av7T@, GAA Kai JV 
Hudc, ol¢ wéAAE Aoyicer9at, ToI¢ 
matevovow emt TOV éyeipayvTa 
"Inoovy Tov Kbplov judy &K ve- 

25 Kp@v~ b¢ raped63n dia Ta Tapa- 
TTOMaTa uav Kat ayépdH did 
TAY OLKALWOLY NOY. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


71 


fore it was imputed to him for 
righteousness. Now it was not 23 
written for his sake alone, that it 
was imputed to him; but for us 24 
also, to whom it shall be imputed, 
if we believe on him that raised up 
Jesus our Lord from the dead; who 25 
was delivered for our offences, and 


was raised again for our justifica- 
tion. 


believers in all future ages comfort and encouragement. Thus in Bereshith 
Rabba,* it is said: “ What is written for Abraham is written also for his 
children.” So also Philo. The faith which is referred to in ver, 24, im- 
plies belief in the resurrection of Christ and all the doctrines necessarily 
connected with it, his death as an atonement for our sins, and his liberation 
from the grave as securing our acceptance with God and its consequent 
blessings. 


Se ORT ON vr. 


Cuap. V. 1-11. 
THE HAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF A STATE OF JUSTIFICATION. 


V. AtkatwSévtec obv éx TriaTEwe, 
eiphvnv éxouev mpdc TOV Sedov 
Ota TOU Kuptov Huey "Inoov Xpto- 
2 tov, dv’ od Kal TY Tpocaywyny 
eoynkapev TH Tote ei¢ TV 
ydpiy TabTyny, ev Wy EoThKaper, 


Therefore being justified by V. 
faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ: by 2 
whom also we have access by faith 
into this grace wherein we stand, 
and rejoice in hope of the glory of 


Crap. v. The Apostle has shown that mankind being all sinners, cannot ex- 
pect justification by obedience, and must obtain it only through faith, which 
secures this blessing to Gentiles as well as to Jews: Chaps. i. ii. iii. He 
has proved also that this doctrine was not at all novel, as it is recognised 
in the language of David, and also in the history of Abraham, from which 
it is evident that his justification was by faith, and previously to his circum- 
cision: iv. He now proceeds to trace the effects flowing from justification 
by faith. 

1-5. “Being justified :” More accurately, ‘ having been justified,’ imply- 


* That is, the great Bereshith, an old Rabbinical Commentary on Genesis. 


Rod 
Fite 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


God. And not only so, but we 
glory in tribulations also: knowing 
that tribulation worketh patience ; 
and patience, experience ; and ex- 
perience, hope; and hope maketh 
not ashamed ; because the love of 
God is shed abroad in our hearts 
by the Holy Ghost, which is given 





kal Kavyopeda em’ éAridt Tie 
d6En¢g Tod Veov. Ov pévov dé, 
GAAG Kai Kavyoueda ev raic 
VAineoty, eldérec, btt BATYpue 
vromovijy Katepydcera, 1) dé 
brromov? doKiyuAy, 7 dé SoKuen 
éArida, 1) 0& éAmic od Katatoyi- 
vets Ott h dyarn Tov Yeow Exxé- 


(Secr. VI. 


ing also a continuance in this condition—The words “ by faith,” in ver. 2. 
are wanting in some ancient authorities, although the evidence is decidedly 
in their favour. They were probably omitted by certain transcribers who 
thought them tautological. But the desire of the Apostle to make faith as 
prominent as possible, would prompt him to introduce it here.—* This 
grace :” In other words, this gracious condition of acceptance.—* Rejoice :” 
So the same original word should have been translated in vs. 3, 11, where 
our English version has “glory” and “ joy,” according to its frequent usage 
of employing a variety of expressions where the original is the same. See 
note on Heb. xii. 28, p. 177, 178. 

The first part of ver. 2 may be parenthetical. If so, the last, “and re- 
joice in hope of the glory of God,” will express the second happy result of 
justification. Or, access through Christ by faith may be the second, and 
rejoicing the third. Some prefer the former, thinking it to agree better 
with the position of the copulative. The noun is used in Heb, iii. 6, where 
see the note. As the Jew rejoiced in his connection with Abraham, in his 
circumcision and covenant relation to God, the Apostle represents the 
Christian as rejoicing in his hope of future glory, and in those means and 
instrumentalities which are intended to facilitate his attainment thereof.— 
Aoxif in ver. 4, is rendered in our translation, “experience ;” and so 
by Tyndale, Cranmer, and Luther, and in the Geneva version. Wiclif has 
“provynge” and the Rheims “ probation.” The word means trial, proof, 
and here most probably implies the result of trial, a character firm and 
consistent, well tried and proved. See Phil. ii. 22. 

“Hope maketh not ashamed :” The meaning is, it does not disappoint 
those who cherish it, or put them to shame as if they had indulged in a 
vain expectation. Comp. ix. 33, x. 11, which are cited from the Septuagint 
of Isa. xxviii. 16.—“ The love of God:” That is, according to the general 
signification of the phrase, God’s love to us. See on viii. 35. Here it is 
used as a metonomy of the cause for the effect, meaning the result of God’s 
pe he effusion of the Holy Spirit here spoken of refers chiefly to his 
ordinary influences abundantly dispensed to believers, although it may 
comprehend also the miraculous powers imparted by him. The language, 
“in our hearts,” shows that the Apostle’s mind dwells principally on the 


Cu, V. 8-8.} EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 73 





xvrae év raic Kapdiarg joy did unto us. For when we were yet 6 
mveipatog wyiov tov dodévtog without strength, in due time 
6 juiv. “Ete yap Xpiorog dvtwy Christ died for the ungodly. For 7 
HOV dodevav kata Kaipov bree scarcely for a righteous man will 
7 dosBav anédave. Méduc yde one die; yet peradventure for a 
bree dikaiov tig aro8aveitat* good man some would even dare to 
bre yao TOV dyadov Tdéya Tic die. But Godcommendeth his love 8 
8 Kat ToAUa drodavetv. Svviornot towards us, in that, while we were 
O€ TV EavToOv adydrny Eig Tae 
6 Yedc, Te ETL duapTwAGY bv- 


general distributions of grace. The word éxyéw would be quite suitable in 
either case. See Acts ii. 17, 18, 33, x. 45, and Tit. iii. 6. 

6. "Ere at the commencement of the verse is no doubt the true reading. 
Some ancient authorities have eye, some ei ydo, and some eic ti. The 
adoption of any one of these readings may have led to the introduction of 
the étv after doSev@v which Griesbach has admitted into the text with the 
mark of good authority.* It must be acknowledged that it embarrasses 
the meaning, and Knapp, Hahn and Olshausen reject it. Tholuck suggests 
various ways of explaining it, all of which are somewhat harsh, and is in 
clined to regard it as a gloss. If admitted, it seems best to consider it as 
a repetition of the first ét¢ introduced to make the statement of our natural 
feeble condition the more emphatic. ‘“ Weak” evidently means, destitute 
of spiritual strength.— In due time” qualifies the words that follow. See 
Gal. iv. 4, 5, “ when the fulness of the time was come,” &c. 

7,8. These verses express the marked difference between the highest 
degree of love shown by any man to his fellow, and that of God and Christ 
to us. There is some difficulty in determining the right connection of the 
two clauses in ver. 7, and also in settling the true meaning of the words 
‘ righteous and good. The connection adopted by our translators makes the 
latter clause somewhat parenthetical, though it serves to heighten the force 
of the former. The sense is clear, but the Greek will hardly bear such a 
translation, as the second yd@ cannot be expressed by “ yet.” The difficulty 
arising from this particle is probably the cause of its having been in a few 
unimportant manuscripts entirely omitted, as it is also in the translations of 
Tyndale and Cranmer. Wiclif has:+ “ vnnethis (scarcely) dieth ony man 
for the just man, and zit for a good man: perauenture summe man dare 
die;” the Geneva has: “ but for a good man,” &c. The Rheims is more 
accurate than either, translating ydé@ for in both cases, which is most proba- 
bly correct. Each clause is in contradistinction to what follows, and either 

* The reader will find an explanation of Griesbach’s most important critical marks in my brief ana- 
lysis of his Prolegomena, contained in the Translation of Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology 


end Interpretation, pp. 254-257. 
+ 1 quote from Bagster’s English Hexapla, 


\ ’ nrg 


74 








yet sinners, Christ died for us. 
9 Much more then, being now justi- 
fied by his blood, we shall be saved 
10 from wrath through him. For, if 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer, VI. VII. 


ei. ~ \ esa (=~ 
TwY juw@v Xpiotog VTEP TOV 
dnédave. IloAA@ obv pardAov 9 
Sikarwdévteg viv ev TO alpare 

; ~ ¢ , . ~ 
avtod awinaipeda dt’ avTov 


azo tie épyijc. El yde éy8poi 10 
dvrec KaTnAAdynuev TH Veg dua 
Tov Yavdtrov tov viov avrov, 
TOAA®@ paddov KaTaAAayévTEs 


when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God by the death of 
his Son, much more, being re- 
conciled, we shall be saved by his 


would make a sufficient antithesis independently of the other. Raphel 
remarks* that the Greek writers make a distinction between diKato¢g and 
dyaéc, understanding by the former an upright man, one who obeys the 
laws, gives to every one his due, and does no injury; and by the latter, 
one who does not confine his action and deportment within the literal re- 
quisition of the law, but with the feeling of habitual benevolence, does all 
the good in his power to his fellow creatures. Vorstt considers dikatoc as 
equivalent to the Hebrew word Pp 7x generally translated in our English 
just or righteous, meaning a religious and good man, and aya¥éc, which 
immediately follows,as synonymous and explanatory. But it is not at all 
probable, that St. Paul would inadvertently introduce two such clauses 
without attaching a definite meaning to each, or that he would intentionally 
use both as precisely equivalent; and therefore the meaning of the two 
words cannot be regarded as identical. In the latter there is a climax. 
The one denotes a righteous man, a person really good and religious, con- 
ducting himself uprightly towards man and humbly towards God; the 
other describes the same character, marked also by a benevolent, self- 
sacrificing disposition, which inclines him to acts of benevolence and 
kindness, by which he becomes distinguished. In this sense the word is 
used in Matt. xx. 15: “Is thine eye evil (envious) because I am good,” 
not merely just, but benevolent and liberal? The Apostle seems to have 
begun his antithesis with the first character in his mind; then suddenly to 
have stopped short, and by a beautiful correction, as I may say, or amplifi- 
cation of his meaning, to have introduced the second, thus: ‘ For scarcely 
for a righteous man will any one die :—for for the good man, whose heart, 
filled with divine love, prompts him to benefit his fellow creatures by con- 
stantly doing good, some one perhaps will even venture to die; but God 
establisheth and recommendeth his own love to us, in giving Christ to die 
for us while we were yet sinners unworthy of his kindness.’ Comp. 
John iii. 16. 

9-11. ‘ Much rather, therefore, having now been justified by his blood :’ 
That is, having been pardoned and accepted by God through his atoning 


* Annotationes Philologice in Novum Testamentum ex Xenophonte, et cet., 8vo, tom, ii, p. 252, 
+ De Hebraismis Noy. Test., Svo. Edit. Fischer; Lips. 1778, pp. 55, 56. 


-“ 


Cn. V. 9-11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 75 





owdnobueda ev TH Swy avTov. life. And not only so, but we also 11 
11 Od poévoy dé, dAAa Kat Kavyo- joy in God, through our Lord Jesus 

evo Ev TO VE@ Sta Tov Kvpiov Christ, by whom we have now re- 

juav Incod Xprorod, dv ov viv ceived the atonement. 

THY KaTaAdayny éEAgBomer. 


sufferings and death. See iii. 25, iv. 6-8, and notes, pp. 55, 63, 64.— 
“ Enemies :” See viii.'7, which shows that the enmity referred to develops 
itself in hostility to God’s law.—* Through his life :” meaning doubtless, 
his glorious life in heaven, where he acts as our permanent intercessor. 
See John xiv. 19, and note on Heb. vii. 25, pp. 98, 99.—* Not only :” 
This refers to what had been before said in vs. 2, 3, and is sufficiently ex- 
plained in the analysis.—‘‘ Received the atonement :” Rather, as it is in 
the margin of our English Bibles, “reconciliation :” In other words, have 
been reconciled. See Robinson’s Lexicon under AayBdvw, 1. f) and 2. e). 





SECTION VII. 


Cuarp. V. 12-21. 


COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF ADAM’S FALL WITH THOSE OF CHRIST'S 
REDEMPTION. 


Yunis section has been the occasion of much critical and theological discus- 
sion. To examine it thoroughly, investigating the various theories both 
exegetical and dogmatic which have been applied to or supposed to be 
founded on it, would require a volume. The reader of this commentary 
must not therefore be disappointed, if he finds nothing more than a brief 
notice of the prominent exegetical and theological points necessary to be 
kept in view in attempting to elicit the Apostle’s meaning. I have endeavy- 
oured to state the purport of this as well as the other parts of the Epistle, 
independently of any doctrinal bias arising merely from education or asso- 
ciation. It seems to be the design of St. Paul to show that, as the 
lamentable effects of the fall extended more or less to all mankind, so do 
the benefits of the atonement, from the blessed results of which Gentiles 
were no more excluded than Jews. As he had never had an opportunity 
of orally instructing the Roman Christians, he avails himself of occasions 
which his subject suggested, to enlarge on the more prominent points of 
the Gospel. The idea of our being reconciled to God through Jesus Christ 
expressed in the former part of the chapter, may have suggested to him an 


76 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VII. 


12 Wherefore, as by one man sin Aid rovTo Gorep du’ évdc dv- 12 


amplification of the statement, and have led him to draw a parallel be- 
tween the benefits which we may thus receive and the injury which we 
sustained by the fall of Adam. It is undoubtedly true that condemnation 
through the one and justification through the other is a prominent part of 
the comparison. The statement of Professor Hodge may well be admitted, 
“We are condemned on account of what Adam did, we are justified on 
account of what Christ did.” But this is not the whole scope. The lan- 
guage is more comprehensive. It is evidently designed to set in contrast 
the general evils sustained by all men in consequence of their connection 
with Adam, with the general benefits procured for all men by virtue of 
their connection in a greater or less degree with Christ. In this view, the 
contents of the section harmonize with the scope of the whole Epistle. They 
tend to place in a clear light these two points ; that justification is not of 
human obedience but of God’s favour through Christ, and that this blessing 
with the happiness attendant upon it is designed for all. 

12. “Therefore :” Some commentators connect this word with the pre- 
ceding verse. Among them is Macknight, who paraphrases thus: “ Our 
Lord Jesus Christ: by whom we have received the reconciliation, for this 
reason, as through one man sin entered,” &c. He adds in support of this 
arrangement: “ For the Apostle is giving a reason why all have received 
reconciliation through Jesus Christ.” But, not to urge that such a connec- 
tion of “ therefore,” did tovro, is very unusual, it is evident that if this had 
been the Apostle’s intention, he would have introduced the word al/ in the 
11th verse, in order to show that he meant his statement there to have a 
general application. Whereas it is certain from the whole preceding part 
of the chapter, that he is speaking exclusively of justified Christians, It is 
best to retain the usual punctuation. The formula, “therefore,” may be 
explained in reference to what follows, namely, the statement that the 
blessings derived from Christ counterbalance at least the evils entailed 
from Adam. As observation and experience assure us of the one, there- 
fore has God graciously provided us with the other. Thus the same 
expression in John vii. 22, though standing at the beginning of the sentence, 
has most probably its logical connection with the remark that circumcision 
was performed on the Sabbath day, which is made at the end of it. Or 
else the phrase may have a retrospective reference to the whole preceding 
discussion, thus: According to what has been already stated and consistently 
with the views before given. Thus it occurs in Matt. xiii. 52, immediately 
after and in close connection with certain very instructive parables and 
their interpretation: “ Therefore, every scribe,” &c. 

“By one man:” that is, Adam. The first father of the human family 
is mentioned rather than the mother, because she may be regarded as asso 


Cu. V. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (if 





Ypdrov 7) duapria cig TOV KOoWov entered into the world, and death 


ciated with him; and also on account of the parallel intended to be drawn 
between him and Christ, as is done also in 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45-49. 

“Sin entered into the world.” The word sin in the Bible generally 
expresses the act or habit of sinning, as every reader must have observed ; 
but it is also employed in the sense of sinfudness, that is, the tendency, 
disposition, quality or element in fallen man, which of its own nature pro- 
duces in our present imperfect condition those acts or habits. Thus we 
find it used in vii. 8, 9, 11: “Sin wrought in me concupiscence—sin was 
dead—sin revived—sin deceived me and slew me.” And so also in ys. 13, 
14,17, 20. It would be quite preposterous to understand sin in these 
places as the act of sinning. And so 1 Johniii. 4, simply means that sin is 
what is at variance with law: 7 duaptia éotiv 7 dvouia, It may be pre- 
dicated of a tendency or quality in a responsible agent as well as of any 
overt act. Therefore the word in the text under consideration is plainly 
susceptible of the same signification, which seems also to be best adapted 
to the context. On this supposition then, the Apostle’s first proposition 
will run thus: By one man, Adam, sinfulness, moral depravity, entered 
into the world. This must of course embrace the necessary results of such 
depravity, appearing in responsible agents under the form of positive sins, 
It seems best, therefore, to give to the word here the most extended mean- 
ing, comprehending both sinful tendency and action. 

The next proposition states the direct consequence of this depravity, so 
acting, namely, death. Weare so in the habit of associating the idea of death 
with that of the separation of soul and body, the meaning which in com- 
mon parlance is attached to the word, that unconsciously we identify the 
one with the other. And there can be no reasonable doubt, that the idea 
of this physical death, and all the evils producing and connected with it, is 
prominent in the Apostle’s mind. The language of the original sentence, 
“dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,” which is explanatory, at 
least in part, of the threat “thou shalt surely die,”* would seem to deter- 
mine this point. And the evident appeal which he makes in ver. 14, to 
what every one knew to be the fact, namely, that “death had reigned 
from Adam to Moses,” settles it most conclusively. Still, this will not 
prove that the meaning is to be limited to the mere separation of the soul 
from the body. Nothing is more certain, than that the Scriptures employ 
the word in a much more extended signification. It denotes the miseries 
of a state of condemnation, comprehending banishment from the enjoy- 
ment of God’s presence, and positive punishment inflicted; and thus it is 
set in contradistinction to life and blessedness with God. In connection 
with this idea more or less clearly developed, it is used to express misery 


* Gen. iii. 19, ii. 17. 


7 


78 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VII. 





by sin; and so death passed upon eloyAde, nai did TH dpaptiac 


and wretchedness in general, and the corresponding word life to denote 
happiness. Thus in Deut. xxx. 19, “I have set before you life and death, 
blessing and cursing ;” in Prov. xii. 28, “in the way of righteousness is 
life, and in the pathway thereof there is no death :” and in 1 John iii. 14, 
“we have passed from death unto life.” See also Prov. xi. 19, John viii. 
21, 24,51. And this general idea of misery is most probably the true 
meaning of the word in this text. It certainly cannot be limited to phy- 
sical death, for from this the Christian is not liberated; nor can it exclude 
this with its necessary adjuncts, for the reasons before assigned. Neither 
is it expedient to endeavour to determine the degree of the misery and 
punishment denoted. It is sufficient that sin and death are naturally 
and necessarily connected. The one follows the other as its attendant 
shadow, dark and malignant. This then is the tenour of the second pro- 
position; through moral depravity, developing itself in actual sins and 
entailed on human nature by the fall of Adam, came human misery, 
physical and spiritual. 

The latter half of the verse repeats the two propositions in a somewhat 
different manner, with some amplification also of the meaning. “And so” 
or thus: That is, in this way, namely, by the sinfulness with its actual 
manifestations, induced through the one man, ‘misery passed through or 
pervaded to all men.’ The original is dc7A8ev el¢. This is rendered by 
Luther, “ penetrated, ist durchgedrungen ;” by Tyndale, Cranmer and the 
Genevan, “ went over ;” and by Wiclif, “passed forth in to.” The asser- 
tion is, that this death took effect on mankind thoroughly and universally.— 
“ For (or in) that all have sinned.” The various expositions which have been 
given of this clause and the doctrines supposed to be sanctioned thereby, 
make it expedient to examine it with particular attention. 

“For (or in) that,” éf’ 6 To the same purpose, Tyndale, Cranmer 
and the Genevan, “in so much.” Wiclif has, “in which man,” and the 
marginal reading in our Bibles is, “in whom.” This translation has been 
given by many commentators. The meaning will then be that all men 
sinned in Adam. This statement will be made, either on the ground of the 
identity of the human nature possessed by him with that possessed also by 
all his descendants, or on that of his being their representative, his acts in 
either case being attributable to them. As it does not comport with the 
design of these notes to enter into metaphysical disquisitions, I shall merely 
say with respect to such theories, that they are not in harmony with the 
practical character of St. Paul’s writings, and that a man of plain good 
sense, not under the influence of some religious or philosophical system, 
will not easily believe that a voluntary offence of one can justly be charged 
on any other, not either participating therein or even at the time existing as 


Cu. V. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 79 


6 Bavaroc: Kal obdtwe sic mdv- all men, for that all have sinned: 


a moral or responsible or even personal being. If it should be said that 
the Scripture speaks of one man acting in or through another, it may be 
sufficient to reply, that it never charges the guilt of one on another, but on 
the contrary directly repudiates the idea. See Ezek. xviii., and particularly 
vs. 19, 20. Heb. vii. 10, which has often been appealed to in support of 
this view, is inapposite. The case there put is of a descendant paying tithes 
in his ancestor some hundreds of years before birth, and this involves noth- 
ing of a moral nature. It is adduced also by the sacred writer with an in- 
troductory formula which greatly qualifies its application. See the note 
there, p. 93, and Whitby. And further, the Greek preposition is different 
from that here employed, the one being é7é and the other év. The right 
translation is, ‘for (or in) that, inasmuch as.’ Thus the same phrase is used 
in 2 Cor. v. 4: “not for that we would be unclothed,” é¢’ 6, for which some 
copies read éevd7. Koppe, in his note on Romans, explains it in the same 
way, quoting from Thomas Magister,* éf’ @ dvti Tod dtézt, that is, instead 
of because ; and from Phavorinus, é¢’ @ t7jv KAoT7v eipydow, inasmuch as 
thou hast committed the theft ; and from Theophilus to Autolychus, é¢’ é 
ov« loyvoe YavatGoat avtotc, because he was unable to put them to 
death. See also Stuart in loc. and Robinson under é7i 11. 3. f). 

“ Have sinned,” japrov. The following are the principal expositions 
of this expression. 

1. ‘ Have, as conscious voluntary agents, transgressed God’s known law ;’ 
in other words, have committed actual sins. According to this view it 
would seem, that the Apostle predicates such sinning of all mankind, infants 
and idiots not excepted. But with respect to the latter class, this is evi- 
dently incredible, as they are not responsible agents; and it is possible 
that, on account of their comparative paucity, they are not taken into con- 
sideration. As to the former, it may be said that we do not know at how 
early an age moral consciousness commences. ‘This is true, and there is 
good reason to believe that in different minds it begins at different ages. 
Still it will hardly be denied that multitudes of infants die, before such a 
conscious moral character can possibly exist. It is inexpedient to go into 
detail on such a point, but it may not be amiss to remind hypercritical po- 
lemics, that infants sometimes die immediately after birth, not to speak of 
those who die before; and to affirm conscious transgression of such were 
more than ridiculous. Even the inquirers, “ Who did sin, this man or 
his parents, that he was born blind?’ cannot be proved to have carried 

* This writer, who was a learned monk and grammarian, probably of the 14th century, made a se- 
lection of Attic expressions, with illustrations of their meaning from ‘Greek writers. The treatise, 
which is contained in a small 12mo volume, was published by Nicolas Blancard, at Franeker in 1690. 


The author quotes passages from Sunesius and Thucydides in support of the meaning above given to 
tbe phrase. 


80 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sger. VIT. 


their extravagance so far as this ; their question rather assuming a previous 
state of the soul’s existence, according to the Wisdom of Solomon viii. 20. 
If it should be said that the Apostle does not comprehend either infants or 
idiots, but speaks only of such descendants of Adam as have arrived at an 
age of consciousness and have become transgressors of God’s moral law; 
the reply is, that then his argument is defective. However various may be 
the opinions respecting certain parts of this discussion, most divines and 
commentators agree in this one point, that the author’s general design is, 
to compare the evils resulting from the fall with the benefits accruing from 
the redemption, and to show that the latter are at least equivalent to the 
former; and moreover, that in so doing he predicates the evils of all 
mankind. But, since infants, dying before consciousness can with any 
probability be affirmed of them, constitute a very large proportion of the 
race, they cannot be excluded or overlooked in the argument. The result 
therefore appears evident, namely, that as infants and idiots do not die 
either physically or spiritually in consequence of their own personal trans- 
gressions, this interpretation of the words “ have sinned ” is inadmissible. 
2. Another class of interpreters explain the language thus: ‘have been 
regarded and treated as sinners.’ The statement will then be to this effect: 
‘Inasmuch as all men have been subjected to the consequences of sin.’ To 
what degree this subjection extended would still be a question for exami- 
nation, although it is plain that physical death is a prominent part, as was 
before shown on p. 77. The seuse thus elicited corresponds with that of 
ver. 19, “ by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted 
sinners.” Such exposition of language is also sanctioned by analogy. Thus 
in Genesis xliii. 9, Judah pledges himself to his father Jacob for the safe 
return of Benjamin in these words, according to our English translation, 
“Jet me bear the blame,” but in the Hebrew, ‘I shall have sinned ;’ and 
so also in xliv. 82. In both these places the Septuagint has translated lit 
erally juaptnKkac &oowat; but the Vulgate explains, ero peccati reus, The 
meaning is, I am willing to be regarded asa sinner and subjected to the 
necessary consequences. And in 1 Kings i. 21, what our translation very 
properly renders, “I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders,” is 
literally in the Hebrew, ‘shall be sinners” and is so expressed in the Sep- 
tuagint and Vulgate. Stuart’s objection to the application of these two 
places is of no weight. Of the former, he says “ the meaning is, I will con- 
sent to be regarded as a sinner ‘by my father;’” and of the latter, we 
“shall be sinners in the view of the reigning prince.” It is difficult to see 
how the signification of the word can be affected by Judah’s consenting to 
be so regarded, which certainly Bathsheba and Solomon did not; or by the 
party so regarding them being in the one case the father and in the other 
the reigning prince. Christ is said to be made for us “sin and a curse,” 
that is, (the abstracts being used for the concretes,) a sinner and a cursed 


On. V.12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 81 





or devoted object, he having consented to be regarded and treated as such 
by his God and father. See 2 Cor. v. 21, Gal. iii. 138. It is certain that 
the Scripture often speaks of a thing as being what it is represented to be 
and treated as if it were. Thus in Acts x. 15, “what God hath cleansed,” 
that is, regards as clean, ‘make not thou common,’ xoévoz ; or, as our trans- 
lation very correctly renders it, “call not thou common.” And in 1 John 
vy. 10, “hath made him a liar,” can mean nothing else but, ‘hath represented 
and treated him as such.’ 

3. But there is yet another view which is certainly preferable to the 
first, and perhaps also to the second of the two just given. “In that all 
have sinned,” may be explained thus: ‘inasmuch as all have become sin- 
ful.’ It may comprehend also the idea of actual sin, predicable of all con- 
scious and responsible human agents as a universal consequence in such ; 
as in the first clause of the verse, the word sin is equally comprehensive. 
Thus the degree and extent of the death or misery which is the necessary 
result of sinfulness, may be modified according to the degree of meaning 
affixed to the word. “The subject of the Apostle is the entrance of sin 
into the world and its spread. The whole dominion of sin is intended.’’* 
The extent of that dominion in conscious and unconscious human beings, in 
infants, for instance, and adult sinners, and the penal consequences resulting 
therefrom, may vary, and the death alluded to may, in the one case, extend 
practically no farther than physical and temporal evils, while in the other, 
it may involve spiritual and everlasting.t The connection of the condition 
of the race with the act of their progenitor—the idea which beyond any 
doubt pervades the whole representation—is shown by the fact that in this 
way, by his act of disobedience, all became sinful. It follows, of course, 
that as conscious beings they actually sinned. But it does not follow, that 
the expression is to be limited to such sinning. Even in iii. 23, where it 
also occurs, no such limitation is necessary, because, as Olshausen says, 
* where no actual sins have been committed, as in the case of unconscious 
children, the power of redemption is still needed.” 

Professor Hodge rejects this interpretation of the clause. A review of 
his objections will afford an opportunity of sustaining it more fully. 

1. “It assigns a very unusual, if not an unexampled, sense to the word.” 
—But on the other hand, first the context favours such a sense. This expla- 
nation of the verb jjuaptov agrees with the meaning above proved to be 
allowable, and given to the noun dyaptia, namely, sinfulness, moral 
depravity. Thus the two clauses of the latter half of the verse will corre- 
spond with the two clauses of the former; “by sin death,” misery, ruin, 


* Translation of Tholuck’s early edition, 

+ Here I would remind the reader that the Apostle is speaking of death as inflicted on the human 
race. Hesays nothing about theinferior animals. The geologist, therefore, may maintain that mon 
sters of various genera and species lived and died, many ages before the creation of man, without in- 
volving in any difficulty the statements made either here or elsewhere in the Bible. 


82 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. VII. 





being parallel with, “thus death passed through;” and, “by one man sin 
(or sinfulness) entered,” with, “in that all have sinned” or become sinful, 
Moreover, secondly, analogy justifies this sense. According to it, qaprov, 
‘have sinned,’ will be employed very much as d7édavovr, ‘ have died,’ is in 
ver. 15, where undoubtedly it signifies ‘ become subject to death, in a dying 
condition.’ Thus also the language in Gen. ii. 17, “in the day that thou 
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” to which there is evidently an allusion, 
expresses rather the mortal condition of the culprit to take place from the 
very moment of transgression, than the result thereof in the very fact of 
dying; and this, whatever view may be taken of the nature of the death 
threatened. In Rom. vii. 9, “I died” signifies, ‘1 became in,’ or was con- 
scious of being in, ‘a dead or dying séate ;’ and, the phrase in 2 Cor. vy. 14, 
“all were dead,” manifestly affirms the condition of all. The Greek word 
is thus correctly rendered in our translation, although it is the same as that 
just before used to express the fact of Christ’s dying for us: “one died 
for all.” 

2. “It destroys the analogy between Christ and Adam. The point of 
the comparison is not, as Adam was the source of corruption, so is Christ 
of holiness; but, as Adam was the cause of our condemnation, so is Christ 
of our justification.”—The comparison is not limited either to the one or 
the other. The Professor assumes this point of his argument. On a former 
page he remarks: “ All that the Apostle says tends to the illustration of 
his declaration, as we are condemned on account of what Adam did, we 
are justified on account of what Christ did.” It may all tend to illustrate 
this, but all is not confined to this particular. The Apostle’s representation 
is the same as that which is briefly expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 22, “As in 
Adam all] die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” There the life 
promised to those “that are Christ’s,” ver. 23, is that condition of glory 
which is consequent upon the resurrection of the just; who, as they “have 
borne the image of the first man, the earthy, shall also bear the image of 
the second man, the heavenly :” vs. 48, 49. It is evident that not only does 
the antithesis lie between condemnation and justification, but that sin, 
death and ruin are contrasted with pardon, free gift, abounding grace, and 
reigning in life eternal. The objection that some of these statements are 
parenthetical is of very little importance. Others are not; and what may 
be allowed to be a parenthesis, on account of ‘a difficulty in the construc- 
tion, which shall presently be noted, is nevertheless essential to a full 
exhibition of the meaning. As all our woes flow from that state of con- 
demnation into which human nature was brought by the fall of Adam, and 
all our blessings from that state of justification or acceptance with God 
which was procured by the atonement of Christ; a statement of the causes 
would most naturally be accompanied by a representation of the effects. 
And such is precisely the fact. 


Cu. V. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 838 





What has been said implies also a sufficient answer to the Professor’s 
other objections. His remark, that “the analogy is destroyed, if anything 
in us be assumed as the ground of the infliction of the penal evils of which 
the Apostle is here speaking,” needs one qualifying circumstance to make 
it correct. It should be stated thus: ‘simply as the original ground; or: 
‘anything in us independently of the sin of Adam.’ . 

The Apostle’s general statement is probably to this effect: ‘Thus, 
through the fall of Adam, death, physical and spiritual misery, took effect 
on all men, inasmuch as all men have thereby become sinful, and, when 
conscious agents, sin.” The moral depravity brought into human nature 
by the sin of Adam will be represented as the cause of its wretchedness, 
Every assertion in the verse harmonizes with the whole statement. 

Theodoret, on verse 12, speaks of ‘ God’s creating Adam under a law in 
order to exercise his reasoning faculty, and of his transgressing it; by 
consequence he became obnoxious to death, and in this condition became 
the father of Cain and Seth and others ; and thus all, inasmuch as they are 
produced of such, have a mortal nature, subject to various wants, by which 
the passions are often immoderately excited, which want of moderation 
produces sin.’ He then proceeds thus: “Therefore the Apostle says that 
Adam haying sinned, and by sin having become mortal, both (sin and 
mortality) penetrated into the race. For death passed through to all men 
in that all have sinned.” He then immediately adds: “For each one re- 
ceives the sentence of death, not on account of his forefather’s sin, but on 
account of his own.” If we regard the concluding sentence as affirming 
death to be the consequence and punishment of the sins of the individual, 
we make the author inconsistent with what he had just before stated, and 
also with what soon after follows. On ver. 16, he says: “one having 
sinned, the whole race received punishment ;”-and on.18, “he having trans- 
gressed, the whole race received the sentence of death.”* May he not 
mean, therefore, in the former passage, that the changed moral condition of 
man, in other words, the sinfulness introduced into his nature in conse- 
quence of the fall, is the cause of his death? This does not proceed as a 
direct result from the sin of Adam, but directly from his own sinfulness, 
which however, was thus derived. If so, what the Greek father loses in 
accuracy of language is more than counterbalanced by consistency of state- 
ment.—Chrysostom, in his oratorical manner, comments thus: “ How 
then did death enter and exercise power? By the sin of the one. And 
what means ‘in that all have sinned? He having fallen, all they also who 
had not eaten of the tree became from him mortal.’ + 

On the construction of the verse commentators are also very much 
divided in opinion. The sentence is generally regarded asimperfect. This, 


* On Romans. Opera, Tom. iii. pp. 41-43, Edit. Paris. 1642. 
t+ Homily on Romans. Opera, Edit. Bened. Venet. 1741, Tom. ix. p. 519. 


84. COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VII. 





13 for until the law, sin was in the tac dvdparovc 6 Ydvatog dijA- 
world; but sin isnot imputed when Vev, &@’ @ mavte¢ dpaptov. 
14 there is no law: nevertheless, “Aypt ydp vouov duapria qv év 13 


however, is questioned by some, who translate Kat obtwe¢, so also, instead 
of and so, This method of making the sentence complete is adopted by 
Le Clere. But it would require a transposition of the two particles as in 
vs. 15, 18, 19, 21, xi. 31, where we find otrw kai, as the phrase occurs 
also in 1 Cor, xii. 12, and many other places. The construction given by 
Erasmus makes the second clause the apodosis or concluding part of the 
sentence. In connection with kai he supplies a obtw¢, which he thinks is to 
be understood, and this he illustrates by referring to Matt. vi. 10, “as in 
heaven, kai, so also in earth.” The result may be expressed thus: ‘as by 
one man sin entered into the world, so also by sin death.’ But this does 
not harmonize with the author’s evident design to set Adam and Christ in 
prominent contrast. Tholuck supposes the apodosis of the sentence to be 
omitted. He thinks that, toward the end of the 14th verse, the thought 
of the wider influence of Christ’s action than that of Adam presses on his 
mind, and being unwilling to omit all mention of direct analogy, he in- 
troduces it in a compressed form in the words: “ who is the figure of him 
that was to come.” But this still leaves the difficulty of the construction 
unexplained. Most commentators suppose the Apostle, in the warmth of 
his feeling, to be hurried on by the train of thought which he had com- 
menced to other closely connected thoughts, and not to return to complete 
the sentence begun in the 12th verse until the middle of the 18th. Thus 
the latter part of this verse will serve as the conclusion both of the former 
half, and of the 12th, its form and language being adapted to what im- 
mediately precedes it. The intermediate portion, although in some respects 
parenthetical, is still to be regarded as essential to the full representation 
of the Apostle’s comparison. So long a parenthesis is quite in character 
with St. Paul’s style, and we have a remarkable illustration in Eph, iii., 
the first verse of which is connected with the 14th, the parenthetical por- 
tion being, however, of great importance. 

13, 14. The statements made in these two verses, exclusive of the last 
clause, are the following: Sin existed in the world until the giving of the 
Jaw; where no law exists sin is not so imputed as to condemn ; during the 
whole period from Adam to Moses death reigned ; and its dominion extended 
over those who had not sinned like Adam. In presenting the first statement, 
Ihave given the usual meaning of dye, though Theodoret and some modern 
annotators explain it so as to require the sense of during, and thus extend 
the period to the establishment of the Gospel. But the phrase “from Adam 
to Moses” is decisive in favour of the common signification. The Apostle 
cannot intend these statements to stand as independent propositions, This 


Cx. V. 18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 85 





Kéouw* duaptia J& ov« &AdAo- death reigned from Adam to Moses, 
14 yetrae 7) bvtog véuov GAA’ éBa- even over them that had not sinned 





is certain from his character as a writer; and the use of the particles for, 
but, nevertheless, sufficiently prove their logical dependence on each other. 
The idea of Professor Stuart is, that St. Paul intends to meet an objection 
taken from what he had before said in iv. 15, “ where no law is, there is no 
transgression,” namely, “ how then were men sinners before the law was 
given ?” and therefore states that men were sinners before the Mosaic law. 
But it is hardly credible that any person who thought on such topics at all, 
could imagine that rational beings like men were under no moral law until 
the time of Moses. Neither is it to be supposed that the Apostle would 
employ his time in refuting or denying so improbable an objection. The 
Professor very truly says, that “ we are not to suppose that Paul had to do 
only with candid and intelligent men ;” but to this it is sufficient to remark, 
that neither are we to suppose that he argues with men of no sense or 
reflection. 

A due consideration of the meaning and bearing of the author’s propo- 
sitions will show, that the statements of the 12th verse, ‘ that death took 
place universally as a consequence of the sin of Adam,’ is what these 
propositions are intended to prove. The statement that “ death reigned 
from Adam to Moses,” is an appeal to what every one knew to be a fact. 
It is connected with the assertion that “ sin was in the world until the law,” 
and introduced by the particle “nevertheless.” This suggests to the 
thoughtful reader an idea which, though not expressed, is most probably 
implied, namely, that no law then existed making death the penalty of sin. 
This ellipsis is all that is necessary to be supplied in order to make the 
argument perfectly clear and conclusive. It will stand thus: ‘It is true 
that sin existed before the Mosaic law. Now it is an undeniable principle 
that sin is not regarded as sin if there be no law,* yet death lorded it over 
all mankind from Adam to Moses, whilst no law with the sanction of death 
existed.’ The Apostle may very well leave the reader to draw the conclu- 
sion, which can be none other than this, that therefore mankind did not die 
for any actual sin of their own; and the previous verse suggests the only 
alternative, namely, that they died on account of the sin of Adam. 


* Though the Apostle sometimes intends to apply this principle with such modification as the 
subject under consideration would require, yet the principle itself is universally true. There can be 
no such thing as sin, properly speaking, without law. Its very existence implies law of some kind. 
Sin in the unconscious infant is that element of his fallen nature which is not in harmony with God's 
law. An act of a conscious human being may be sinful, which in an irrational animal would not be so. 
And the reason is found in the Apostle’s principle : the one is under moral law, the other not. 

+ Whitby introduces the word *“‘ generally * in his Paraphrase, and regards the Antediluvians and 
people of Sodom as exceptions to the application of the statement. He does not seem to have con- 
sidered that the punishment inflicted on these was violent death, whereas St. Paul uses the word to 
denote mortality, to which they were subject, in common with every descendant of Adam, in the 
ordinary course of nature. 


86 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxcr. VIL. 





after the similitude of Adam’strans- o/Aevoev 6 Ydvatog dnd ’Addp 
péxpt Mwiiaéwe Kai én tod 


The language of Chrysostom is entirely coincident with this view of St. 
Paul’s reasoning. “Sin cannot subsist where there is no law. If there- 
fore, says he, this sin from the transgression of the law brought forth 
death, how did all they that were before the law die? For if death had its 
root from sin, and there being no law sin is not reckoned, how did death 
exercise force? Whence it is evident that it was not this sin which is of 
the transgression of the law, but that which is of the disobedience of Adam 
which destroyed all things. And what is the proof? For death reigned, 
says he, from Adam,” &c.* 

I freely admit that there is a difficulty which perhaps cannot be satisfac- 
torily removed, namely, “the limitation of the period,” to use the language 
of the Professor above cited, “from Adam to Moses. Why should the 
Apostle stop within these narrow limits? Why confine his assertion” 
thus? I would rather say, the designation of this period; for that he meant 
thus to limit the operation of the death spoken of is an unfounded 
assumption. It may not be easy to give a reason for this designation. 
And yet it is very conceivable, that, writing to’a church consisting chiefly 
of Jewish converts, he might choose to note the introduction of the Jaw by 
Moses in contrast to the time of Adam’s fall, as representing a period 
during which there was no law threatening mortality as the effect of trans- 
gressing it, although it would have served his general purpose equally well 
to have extended the period even to his own day. He might have said, 
from the time of Adam to the present no such law has existed. The pro- 
mulgation of the Mosaic law was a great epoch, especially with the 
Hebrews, and therefore might very fitly stand in contrast with the original 
transgression of God’s law by Adam. If the Zechariah of Matt. xxiii. 35, 
be the prophet mentioned in 2 Chron, xxiv. 20-22, as is maintained by the 
best commentators, the question may be asked, why does not our Lord 
extend the period designated by him to his own day, from the time of the 
first murder to that of the last? The striking character of the death of 
Zechariah, and the impression it had made on the Jewish mind,} supply 
the answer. So also does the application of the same principle in the 
present instance. Such a difficulty is by no means sufficiently weighty to 
set aside an exposition in accordance with the context and with analogy of 
Scripture. 

“ Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s 


* Ubi sup. p. 520. 

+ In Lightfoot’s Hebrew and Talmndical Exercitations, the reader may find on the verse in Mat- 
thew a Jewish legend quoted from the Talmud, the extravagant superstition of which is proof enough 
of the remark, 


Cn. V. 14, 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 87 


(2) Guapthoavtag ént Tq Omot- gression, who is the figure of him 

uate THe TapaBdoewco ’Addu, that was to come. But not as the 15 

b¢ éoTt TiTog¢ TOV péAAOYTOC. offence, so also is the free gift: for 
15 AAW ody @¢ TO TapdtTwna, 

oUTW Kal TO Ydploua*s el yao 


transgression.” It is perhaps impossible to say what degree of likeness is 
intended. If the author means in this clause of the verse to express some 
additional idea to that in the former, then he may be supposed to compre- 
hend infants and idiots, who are not conscious transgressors against any 
known divine law. Both clauses, however, may relate to the same whole 
body of Adam’s descendants, the latter merely stating that this body 
had not sinned in the same way as their first father had. This is true 
in more points than one. His condition was that of innocence; theirs, of 
moral depravity. He broke a positive divine law, the transgression of 
which involved the penalty of death; they were never subjected to such a 
law. Other points of difference might be stated, but these are sufficient to 
explain the author’s language. Professor Hodge objects to this view, 
“that it destroys the distinction between the two classes of persons here 
alluded to.” Certainly it does; but that there are two classes between 
whom a distinction must be made, is the very point to be proved. “It 
makes Paul, in effect, reason thus, ‘death reigned over those who had not 
violated any positive law, even over those who had not violated any posi- 
tive law.’” Thisisnotso. The exposition makes the first clause a merely 
general statement, that death conquered all that body of Adam’s descend- 
ants who lived before Moses, and the second a declaration that the nature of 
their sin differed from his. “It is obvious that the first clause describes a 
general class, and the second, distinguished by the word even, only a portion 
of that class.”——But this inference is founded on the English translation 
“even,’ and will be without support if the copulative be rendered and. 
The first clause will affirm that death held general sway ; the second will 
state a distinction between the sin of the parent and that of his children. 
“The figure (literally, type) of him that was to come.” The original 
participle tod péAdAovtoc, although used in the feminine to designate 
Messiah’s kingdom, or the Gospel dispensation as regarded in contradis- 
tinction to the Jewish, is equally applicable to Messiah himself, who is here 
intended. The word usually employed is 6 épyéuevoc. Probably the 
Apostle preferred the other from having in mind the contrast between the 
blessings of Messiah’s kingdom as a whole, with their forfeiture in the 
natural condition of fallen man.—The word type means an impression, 
image or representation of something. It generally supposes points of 
similarity in the two, as is illustrated in the case of the priesthoods 
of Melchisedek and Christ. Sometimes, however, it is used to express 


88 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. VII. 





if through the offence of one many 74) Tod évd¢ TapaTtTGpart ol TOA- 
be dead; much more the grace of Aol dréVavov, TOAAG padAov 7} 
God, and the gift by grace, which ydpic ToD Yeow Kai 1 Swped ev 
ts by one man, Jesus Christ, hath ydpite rH TOD évde dv¥parov 

"Inaov Xptorod ele Tove TOAAOVE 


contrast, as in the present instance, and most probably in that which occurs 
in 1 Pet. iii. 21, where baptism seems to be contrasted with the flood. 
Here Adam is introduced as the type of Christ, as he is also in 1 Cor. xv. 
21, 22. In vs. 45, 47, he is spoken of as “the first man:” and the 
Messiah as “the last” and “the second,” meaning, in his character as 
contrasted with Adam, both standing in a relation to the human race some- 
what similar. 

15. Having stated the typical analogy of the two, the author now pro- 
ceeds to note certain points of dissimilarity. These either show that the 
restoration through Christ completely counterbalances the evils induced by 
means of Adam’s transgression, or that it does in reality go beyond them, 
making the advantage superior to the Joss. ‘ But the gracious benefit, 76 
xdovoua, is not (in all respects) as the fall: for, if by the fall of the one 
the many died; much rather hath the grace of God, and the gift through 
the grace which is of the one man Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.’ 
The language is pleonastic, expressive of the greatness and the freeness of 
the gratuity. The article 77 which qualifies ydpcrt, shows that the trans- 
lation just given is the true one. Here we have the fall or offence or 
transgression, contrasted with the divine favour; the misery and ruin 
brought on the mass by this fall of Adam, with the gracious gift of the 
Gospel procured through Christ for the same mass; and we have the 
Apostle’s statement, that it is much rather to be expected that this great 
benefit should abound to Adam’s posterity, than that the ruinous effects of 
the fall should extend to them. The representation is an appeal to our 
right estimate of the divine character, and especially its benevolence. 
*Exepiocevoe implies that the benefit spoken of is completely extended. 

It must be evident to any unbiassed reader, that the many, ol. moAAoil, 
in both connections in this verse means the whole mass of mankind. In ° 
neither clause does it admit a limited signification. And this is true also 
of the same word in ver. 19, which is certainly equivalent to the phrase 
“all men” which immediately precedes it. This view of the universality 
of the results both of Adam’s fall and of Christ’s atonement, is the only 
one which corresponds with the scope of the section and the connec- 
tion in which it stands with the writer’s argument. It illustrates his 
main points, namely, that justification cannot be attained on the ground 
of perfect obedience, and that the blessings of the Gospel are not at all 
exclusive. 


Cn. V. 15, 16.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 89 


16 érepiccevoe. Kat ody @¢ de’ abounded unto many. And not as 16 
évdcg duaprioavtog 76 O@pnua* it was by one that sinned, so is the 
TO pév yao Kpiwa é évdc eic gift: for the judgment was by one 
KardKkpyia, TO O& xYaptowa ék to condemnation; but the free gift 
TOAA@Y TapanTw@pdTwr eic dt- is of many offences unto justifica- 





16. “By one that sinned,” duaprjoavtoc. Some important manu- 
scripts, the Syriac, Vulgate, and other versions, and several of the fathers, 
read, duapthwatoc. But this reading arose most probably from an attempt 
to make a more expressive contrast between &é TOAA@Y TapaTTMmdTwY 
towards the close of the verse and the preceding é§ év6¢ with which 
TapanTouatoc must be understood, by introducing a similar word in the 
first clause. To this may have been added a desire to adapt the language 
more closely to that employed in vs. 15, 17, where mapdrtTwpa repeatedly 
oceurs. The received reading is no doubt genuine. The phraseology is 
somewhat varied from that of the previous verse. Apna, is equivalent 
to dwped or rather to ydéptowa which precedes it. The xpiua or sentence 
against Adam sprang from his one offence and announced condemnation ; 
the gracious benefaction procured by Christ proclaims liberation from the 
consequence of many offences, so as to secure forgiveness, divine accept- 
ance, and the blessings resulting. 

The first clause of this verse is evidently elliptical. It may be com- 
pleted by understanding sentence or condemnation or consequence or some 
such expression, which may stand in contradistinction to “ gift,” thus imply- 
ing the effect of the sin of the one man. The contrast is more particularly 
drawn out immediately afterwards, both in the remainder of this verse and 
in the next. ’Eé évéc is not equivalent to dv’ évéc, for this relates to Adam 
and that to his one transgression, which is contrasted with the many trans- 
gressions of his posterity. A few commentators have rendered && év6¢ 
(xapattéparoc,) by the offence of one, and the corresponding phrase é« 
TOAA@Y TapanTwudtwv, by the offences of many. But this view is not 
only entirely unnecessary, but quite improbable ; and moreover, according 
to the author’s usage év6¢ ought to have the article. Comp. ver. 15, ‘ by the 
fall of the one—the grace of the one ;’ also ver. 17, ‘ by the fall of the one 
death reigned through #he one—shall reign in life through ¢he one ;’ also in 
ver. 19, ‘disobedience of the one man—obedience of ¢he one.’ The arti- 
cles are certainly intended to be emphatic, and ought not to be unnoticed 
in the translation. 

17. It is important to note that here the Apostle’s antithesis, while it con- 
tains the same general idea as before stated, is also somewhat exegetical. 
In contrasting the benefit of the redemption with the evil of the fall, he 
speaks of those who receive the precious boon; implying thereby the co- 
operation of the party benefitted with the gracious giver. The benefit is 


90 COMMANTARY ON THE [Secr. VII. 


17 tion. For if by one man’s offence Kaiwua. El yap 7 tov évd¢ 17 
death reigned by one; much more TapatTwpate 6 Savatoc éBaot- 
they which receive abundance of Aevae did Tod évic, TOAA@ pad- 
grace and of the gift of righteous- Aov of Tijv meptoceiay Tic YapiTog 
ness, shall reign in life by one, Kal Tij¢ dwped¢ Tic SiKaLoobvng 


described in language expressive of abundance, and is like the phrase “ riches 
of grace, riches of glory,” which also imply ‘ fulness and excellence.’ The 
reigning in life predicated of the recipients of this abundance of grace, is 
evidently in contrast with the reign of death attributable to the fall, and 
describe the true Christian’s everlasting happiness, 

It is thought by many distinguished commentators that in this contrast 
between Adam and Christ, the Apostle intends to show that the amount of 
benefit received is vastly greater than that of evil entailed. This has been 
supposed to be implied in the phrase “ the abundance of grace,” T7jy 7repto- 
oeiav Tie xdpitoc. Locke speaks of a “ surplusage of the gift” as “a justifi- 
cation to life from a multitude of sins, whereas the loss came only for one 
sin.” This he calls “ the excess of the favour, the inequality of the gift itself, 
which exceeds as many exceeds one.” Stuart is decidedly of this opinion. 
“The superabounding of Gospel grace which is insisted on so emphatically in 
vs. 15-17 consists in the fact, that the death of Christ procures pardon for the 
numerous offences which we commit, while the effects of Adam’s sin have 
respect only to one offence. The remedy is far more powerful and effica- 
cious than the corruption and misery.” He repeats this view several times 
afterwards. Professor Hodge, in commenting on the 15th verse, allows 
that “the design is not to show that the blessings procured by Christ are 
greater than the evils caused by Adam ;” and this he says “ the attentive 
reader will perceive constantly increasing evidence” of. He remarks very 
truly, that “the force of the passage lies in the words much more.” But 
nevertheless on ver 16, he maintains the same view of surplusage or supe- 
riority. “The point of this verse is, that the sentence of condemnation 
which passed on all men for the sake of Adam, was for one offence, whereas 
we are justified by Christ from many offences. Christ does much more than 
remove the fault and evils consequent on the sin of Adam.” ‘The same 
substantially is stated afterwards more than once. 

On reading the Apostle’s contrast, the first impression is, that he does 
intend to teach some such superiority of benefit through Christ over evil 
through Adam. Doubtless most readers feel a desire to make out such a 
superiority ; and furthermore, various considerations, drawn from the in- 
spired author’s phraseology and from the paternal and benevolent charac- 
ter of God, make it highly probable that the grace of the Gospel does really 
afford more than a mere counterbalance to the evils of the fall. The 20th 
verse also does expressly state that “where sin doth abound grace hath 


Cu. V. 17-18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 91 








AauBdvovtes év Swi BaotAevd- Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the 18 
sovat did TOU évd¢ "Inood Xpto- _ offence of one, judgment came upon 

18 tov. “Apa ovv we dv’ évdc all men to condemnation; even so 

eee TapanTawarog ble madvrac dv- by the-righteousness of one, the free 

Sparove el¢ KaTadKpiywa, ovTH , gift came upon all men unto justi- 
much more abounded,” izepetepiooevae. Still, our very imperfect knowl- 
edge of what would have been the condition of Adam and of his posterity, (if 
we may speak of them in such circumstances, ) had he not fallen, makes it ex- 
ceedingly difficult if not impossible for us to obtain anything more than very 
general ideas on such a topic. Where reason can teach nothing and divine 
revelation withholds light, we must be content to be ignorant. And not to 
affect a knowledge which we cannot have is our highest wisdom. I cannot 
see the force of some of the statements just quoted. If the condemnation 
in some degree of the whole race resulted from the offence of Adam, who 
is allowed to have “ introduced sin and misery into the world, and in con- 
sequence of this all are in a state in which they are greatly exposed to the 
second death ;” if such be the results of this “ one offence,” it became neces- 
sary in order to counterbalance them that Christ should “ procure pardon 
for the numerous offences which we commit.” A liberation from the conse- 
quences of these comprehends nothing beyond what our condition required 
in order to remove the existing evil. It would seem, therefore, that a su- 
periority of favour beyond what was necessary for this purpose, is not 
clearly deduced from the expressions which have been supposed to justify 
such a conclusion ; the language, as I have already said, being rather an 
appeal to our right appreciation of God’s benevolence, as a sufficient ground 
for expecting at the very least a prompt and willing remedy. 

18, 19. “ By the offence of one—by the righteousness of one:” This 
translation is sanctioned by several distinguished commentators, among 
whom is Tholuck. Our marginal reading is, ‘by one offence—by one 
righteousness.’ This corresponds best with the Greek, dv’ évd¢ taparr- 
Topatoc—ov’ évd¢g StKaLdparog ; and it is probably the true version. For, 
as [ have already remarked, where the other meaning is clearly intended, the 
Apostle always employs the article. The one offence is the sin of Adam, 
and the one righteousness the obedience of Christ. This. latter compre- 
hends whatever was necessary to constitute his atonement and satisfaction 
to divine justice, which the Scripture generally represents as his sufferings 
and death, these being most especially prominent and essential. Thus, as 
the contrast was before stated to be between the condemnation resulting 
from Adam’s one offence and the deliverance procured by Christ from our 
many offences ; so here it will be between his one sin and Christ’s succes 
sive acts and whole habit of obedience both active and passive. Any 
separation between these two kinds of obedience so as to give an importance 


92 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. VII. 





19 fication of life. Forasby one man’s Kal dv évdc¢ duxatcparog ele wdv- 
disobedience many were made sin- Ta¢ dvdparove ele Otkaiwow 
ners, so by the obedience of one wie. "“Qo7ep yde dia tI¢ Ta- 19 
shall many be made righteous. pakojje Tov évdc dvdpaov dpuap- 

TWAOL KaTeaTadnoav ol TOAAOi, 
obTw Kal dia THE braKoTC TOD 
évodc dikaror Katasradijoovrat 


and superiority to the one over the other, is without scriptural warrant. In 
the first clause of the text we must supply from the 16th verse the word 
“sentence,” and in the second “ free-gift.” The whole passage as an infer- 
ence from what had been before said and in accordance therewith, is intro- 
duced by “therefore,” dpa oiv. In this respect it is similar to ver. 12, 
with which it is probably connected. See the note there, p. 84.—The 
following verse is to the same general effect. The disobedience of the one 
man corresponds with ¢he one offence just stated; and the obedience of the 
one with the one righteousness. It is unnecessary to say that, in both 
clauses, the one and the many stand in contradistinction to each other; the 
many being equivalent to the whole mass of mankind, as the same adjec- 
tive is used also in ver. 15.—The word rendered “ were made,” kateord- 
Snoav, means “to set down, settle, establish, bring into a certain state, to 
make so and so, to cause to be, to render, to make.” See the Lexicon of 
Liddell and Scott, also Robinson’s. Olshausen’s meaning, as given in the 
translation, is, “‘to be set forth as somewhat, and by the setting forth to be 
pronounced to be somewhat.” Whether in this verse it is to be understood 
in the sense of regarding as sinners, or actually becoming sinners, is dis- 
puted. That it may be taken in the former sense, is evident from the 
general tenour of the context, and from the way in which such words are 
often employed. The language in 1 John y. 10, “he that believeth not 
God hath made him a liar,” may be regarded as parallel. Although the 
Greek verb is 7ovéw, it will not be questioned that it is at least as strong 
to express a real making of the character described as that here used. And 
yet no one ever thinks of affixing to it such a signification, The other 
sense, however, of actually becoming sinners, is certainly according to 
common usage. It is probable that the Apostle means to convey the idea 
with which he commenced his comparison in the 12th verse. As Adam’s 
disobedience was the occasion of the sinfulness and positive transgressions 
of his race, their condemnation in a greater or less degree being conse- 
quently included, so also shall Christ’s obedience become the procuring 
cause of the acquittal, acceptance and restoration of the same race, provi- 
ded they embrace the Gospel. The limitation annexed to the latter state- 
ment, is in accordance with the usage of Scripture, in making positive 
statements and absolute promises when the necessary condition is presumed. 


‘ 


On. V. 19-21.] 





20 of moAAot. Nouoc dé Tapeto- 
qaverv, va trAeovdon TO Ta- 
pdztwpa* ob d& érAsbvacer 7 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 93 





Moreover, the law entered, that the 20 
offence might abound. But where 
sin abounded, grace did much more 


duaptia, wbmEepettepiocevoevy 17) 
21 ydpic, iva dorep &Bacidevoer 7 


abound: that as sin hath reigned 21 


In illustration of this principle, it may be sufficient to refer to two passages. 
In Num, xxv. 12, 13, an absolute promise of “an everlasting priesthood” 
is made to Phineas and his posterity ; and yet, in the course of a few gen- 
erations, this office passed into another family. Subsequently, indeed, it 
reverted to the descendants of Phineas in the person of Zadok, in whose 
line it continued. Thus the succession was broken, and this shows that the 
original promise, though expressed absolutely, implied some condition 
which had been violated. See the Commentators on the text in Numbers. 
Again, in 1 Cor. iii. 15, it is said of the Christian minister whose efforts 
will not stand the test of the great searching examination, “he shall pe 
saved,” adding a figurative expression implying great difficulty. But no 
one can suppose that the salvation of such a one is affirmed absolutely. 
Undoubtedly, the condition of sincerity, at least, is implied. The limita- 
tion before spoken of is also in accordance with the 14th and 17th verses, 
where the reign of death over the whole race is contrasted with the glorious 
reign in life of those who receive the rich abundance of the divine and 
gracious gift. 

20, 21. “ The law:” The Greek is without the article, and so probably 
should the translation be. It is frequently explained simply of the law as 
promulged by Moses. But although the moral law thus communicated 
may have been prominent in the author’s mind, (compare “from Adam to 
Moses” in ver. 14;) yet I can see no reason why he may not comprehend 
the law as a moral rule under which man, as a conscious and responsible 
See 1 Tim. i. 8-10, where, after stating the 
excellence of moral law in general, he proceeds to speak of it evidently as 
promulgated to the Hebrews. 

“ Entered,” tapevo7Adev. 


being, was originally placed. 


Our translation disregards the preposition 
tapd, and renders the compound verb, as it does the simple in ver. 12, 
“sin entered,” to which the Apostle most probably alludes. Tyndale and 
Cranmer translate, “in the meane tyme entred in.” The word may be 
intended to convey this idea, that law took effect on the sinner unexpect- 
edly, or that he came under it in some measure unawares. Compare the 
use of the preposition in composition in Gal. ii. 4, 2 Pet. ii. 1, and Jude 4. 
It is more probable, however, that the verb expresses the idea of entering 
beside or along with. Then the meaning will be, that along with the 
entrance of sin law, that is, a fuller consciousness and appreciation of it, 
took effect on human nature, 


94 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. VIL 


unto death, even so might grace dpaptia év 76 Vavdtw, odTw 
reign, through righteousness, unto Kal 7 ydptc Baotdevoy did StKat- 
eternal life, by Jesus Christ our oobvng el¢ Cwijv aldmuov dia 
Lord, *Inoov Xpiorod Tov Kupiov juar. 


“That the offence might abound :” The author explains his meaning more 
fully in vii. 5, 7-13, where he represents moral law both as showing the 
sinner his guilt and condemnation, and becoming the occasion of exciting 
his weak and sinful nature to transgression. Were the former result the 
whole of the Apostle’s idea, fva might be ¢elic, that is, it might express the 
end for which the law was given, and the translation be, in order that; as 
it was certainly one part of the design of the law to bring the offender to 
a proper sense of his sins, But, as it cannot be thus limited, and as the 
law does actually become the occasion of sins abounding or increasing, it 
is better to translate, ‘so that sin abounded.’ Thus what is said of the law 
both here and in the 7th chapter, may be illustrated by Matt. x. 34, 35, 
where the evils that sprang from hostility to the Gospel are represented as 
if they were the direct result of the Saviour’s advent. 

The remainder of these verses expresses the triumph of grace over 
sin, in language which has already been explained. The translation of 
dikaoobvnc, which is most in harmony with the whole section and also 
with what precedes it, is justification. The expression efernal life, the full 
meaning of which is made clear by the epithet, is placed in contrast with 
the more general and less accurately defined one death. 


On. V. 21-V]. 1.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 95 








SHC TIO MV ETT. 


Cuapr. VI. 


THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND SALVATION BY DIVINE 
FAVOUR, AFFORD NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN, BUT RATHER PRESENT THE 
STRONGEST MOTIVES TO HOLINESS, 


VI. = Té oty épotpev; éripevodpev What shall we say then? Shall VI. 
TH apaptia, iva » xadptc TAeo- we continue in sin, that grace may 


Cuap. vi. The Apostle now proceeds to guard the doctrine advanced 
from becoming the ground or occasion of sinful indulgence. The grace of 
God through Christ, which the previous discussion has shown to abound 
towards the human race, has in all ages been perverted by the corrupt 
heart to antinomian recklessness of living. The question in ver. 1 may be 
the language of a depraved objector, or it may be the author’s manner of 
stating the mischievous inference drawn from the previous truth, What 
follows contains two most important considerations in direct opposition to 
the practical fallacy of such a conclusion. . The first develops the funda- 
mental principle, that in the truly baptized person such a continuance in 
sin is’simply impossible, because by real Christian baptism he has become 
mystically united to Christ, therefore dead and buried with him to sin, 
with a view to a moral resurrection, the precursor of a physical and spiritual 
and glorious one at the last day. The other consideration, which is brought 
forward in connection with this and made the ground of exhortation, is, that, 
the profession of Christianity which we publicly make in baptism, binds us 
to avoid sin and to cultivate holiness. Hence it follows that, as professing 
Christians, we cannot consistently abuse the grace of the Gospel by prac- 
tising sin, nor, as real Christians mystically united with Christ and receiy- 
ing from him through this union a principle of divine and holy life, is such 
practice possible. These two points will be more fully illustrated in what 
follows. 

Ver. 1. The received reading is émpevovuer, for which many, both 
ancient and valuable authorities, have émiuévwuev. The reader who is 
acquainted with the Greek forms will perceive that either reading affords a 
clear meaning, and accords with the context: ‘shall’ or ‘may we continue ? 

2. “Dead to sin:” Such figurative language is very common in the 
New Testament. Thus in the next chapter, the Jews are said to be “dead 
to the law,” ver. 4; and in Eph. ii. 1, men in their natural state are called 
“dead in trespasses and sins.” It is unnecessary to multiply references. 


96 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VIII. 


2 abound? God forbid. How shall vdéoy; M7) yévorto: oitiveg dme- 2 
we, that are dead to sin, live any Vdvouev ty dyaptia, mO¢ ert 
3 longer therein? Know ye not, ¢ijoouev év adty; “H dyvoeire, 3 


As it is true of figurative language in general, so is it particularly true of 
this, that the expositor should be cautious not to carry the comparison ex- 
travagantly far; and any degree is extravagant, which becomes forced and 
unnatural. There are points of resemblance, however, which must recom- 
mend themselves to every reflecting mind. 

1) The state of death implies a state of insensibility, and it is both the 
duty and the privilege of Christians to become in a measure insensible to 
and unaffected by the delusive charms of sin, so that the man who was 
once all alive to its influence becomes indifferent to its most pressing soli- 
citations.—2) And as the Christian is dead to sin, so also is sin in his 
view as a dead object. The Apostle suggests this thought in ver. 6, where 
he represents the “old man” as “crucified with” Christ, “that the body of 
sin might be destroyed.” Compare Gal. vi. 14: “the world is crucified unto 
me.” As the dead object cannot excite the pleasurable emotions and 
desires to which when living it gave birth, so neither can sin in the mind 
of the Christian. As, on the contrary, the dead object excites the opposite 
sentiments or feelings, those namely of aversion and disgust; so does sin 
in the soul of the true Christian. Other points of similarity might doubt- 
less be traced, but these will sufficiently illustrate the Apostle’s figure. 
The Christian is dead to sin, and sin is dead to him. Living any longer in 
the practice of it is therefore impossible, because he is influenced by the 
principle of a different, yea, an opposite life. , 

8. “So many of us” (rather: ‘we as many,’) “as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” What is it to be baptized into 
Christ? or what does true Christian baptism mean? <A proper answer to 
this question may throw light not only on the Apostle’s statements here, 
but also on other parts of the sacred word. 

When John distinguished his own baptism from that of the Messiah, 
whom he introduced by the announcement that he should “ baptize with 
the Holy Ghost and with fire,” (Matt. iii. 11 ;) there can be no doubt that 
the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when the 
ability to speak in unknown languages was conveyed under the significant 
emblem of apparent fiery tongues, was intended: See Acts i. 6, xi. 16. 
But it does not therefore follow that the Baptist’s language had no further 
reference. It exhibits undoubtedly, in striking contrast, the difference be- 
tween his own preliminary and imperfect baptism, and that of the divine one 
who was “above all,” and who “must increase” until he should receive 
again “that glory which he had with the Father before the world was,” 
Christ’s baptism and Christ’s spirituality and divine nature are in perfect 


Cn. VI. 2-4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 97 


dre boot éBartiodnuev sig Xpio- that so many of us as were bap- 
tov “Inaovy, sig tov Ydvatov _ tized into JesusChrist were baptized 
4 atrov éBartiodnuey ; Lvvetd- into his death? Therefore we are 4 


harmony. There is scarcely any conceivable moral and spiritual elevation, 
which may not scripturally and reasonably be represented as the legitimate 
result of Christian baptism rightfully and fully understood. But it is all- 
important to have a clear conception of what such Christian baptism is. To 
suppose that it consists in the immersion of the baptized party or in his 
affusion or aspersion with water in the name of the holy Trinity, and by a 
minister of Christ acknowledged to be properly authorised, would be to 
form a very imperfect conception of its true nature and significancy.—Real 
Christian baptism is both internal and outward; and it is most generally 
thus represented in the New Testament. Inasmuch as the great mass of 
baptized persons in the age of Christ and his Apostles were adults, baptism 
is usually spoken of in reference to such; although it is demonstrable that 
infants also were partakers of that holy sacrament. The language of St. 
Peter is most instructive in reference to the true nature and meaning of 
this Christian institution. He tells us that baptism is “not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards 
God:” 1 Pet. iii, 21. If any thing is clear in language, this definition 
affirms Christian baptism to be something more than an external washing 
of the outer man, and makes it comprehend also an inward religious 
character, avowed in conscientious profession thereof before God. And 
thus St. Paul also describes it in Col. ii. 11, as the “putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh,” and in Gal. iii. 27, as ‘the putting on of Christ,’ 
which implies, according to the figure of clothing as used in the Bible, not 
a mere external profession, but a real possession of the inward character 
avowed. It may be well in passing to confirm this remark. I beg the 
reader, therefore, to attend to the following passages. 

“ Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Rom. xiii. 14: that is, become 
thoroughly like him in holiness. A real assimilation in moral character is 
most certainly the thing inculcated. “Have put on Christ,” Gal. iii, 27: 
in other words, have become like him. “Shall be clothed with shame,” 
Job viii. 22: the meaning is evident, shall be openly and really disgraced. 
And so in Ps, xxxv. 26: “ Let them be clothed with shame and dishonour.” 
Compare also cix, 17-19. In Isa, lix. 17, “ he was clad with zeal as a cloak,” 
expresses the real possession of what is thus figuratively represented. 
And so also lxi. 10, “he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,” 
&e. Compare Judg. vi. 34, “the Spirit of the Lord came upon (Heb. and 
Sept. clothed) Gideon.” 

With all this accords the statement in our catechism, that baptism 
comprehends “water, the outward and visible sign,” and also “an inward 

a 


98 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VIII. 


buried with him by baptism into @yuev ody adt@ did Tod Barria- 
death; that like as Christ was pato¢ ei¢ tov Ydvaror, iva éo- 
raised up from the dead by the 79 %yépdn Xpiord¢ &x vexpOv 
glory of the Father, even so we td tij¢ déén¢ Tov TaTpbc, OdTw 


and spiritual grace,” namely, “ a death unto sin and a new birth unto 
righteousness.” It follows, therefore, that where either of these is wanting 
baptism is imperfect ; and surely it cannot be imagined that the inward 
part of the sacrament is less important than the outward, 

Now, in the chapter under consideration, as is also generally the case in 
the New Testament, the Apostle represents the baptized Christian as having 
fully received this sacred and divine institution, and consequently experi- 
enced the inward reforming character which it symbolizes. He speaks of 
baptism and of the baptized as they really are according to the Christian 
scheme, not in accommodation to any imperfect view and reception of the 
sacrament. Therefore it is that he employs language so greatly significant. 
And ‘the fulness of his thought is not applicable to, neither can it be 
rightly appreciated by, any one who has not been inwardly baptized with 
the Holy Ghost, as well as outwardly with the symbolical element. To 
be baptized into Christ does not simply mean into the acknowledgment of 
Jesus as the true Messiah, but rather it denotes a spiritual connection with 
him, whence results a participation of the blessings of his grace, those flow- 
ing from his death and resurrection, The truly baptized Christian has 
been incorporated into Christ, so as to have become really in spirit, though 
not personally, one with him; as Christ died literally and was buried, so 
doés the scripturally baptized Christian die and become buried spiritually. 
Thus the Apostle carries out the figure with which he begins, implying the 
thoroughness of the true Christian’s spiritual death and burial to sin, He 
gives also the counterpart of this representation in the baptized Christian’s 
privilege to be raised to a new and holy life, in imitation of Christ’s resur- 
rection. Thisis said to have been accomplished “ by the glory of the Father,” 
meaning his divine power. Thus the word.“ glory” is used in John xi, 40, 
“thou shouldst see the glory of God,” and in Exod. xvi. 7, “ ye shall see 
the glory of the Lord.” ‘According to this view the reader will perceive, 
that it is not merely what the Christian professes in baptism which the 
Apostle here speaks of, but rather what by full baptism he receives. 

It has been inferred from the 4th verse, that St. Paul alludes to the an- 
cient mode of baptizing by immersion. But this is not supported by the 
phrase, which merely carries out the figure, denoting the completeness of 
the spiritual death before mentioned. And thus in Galatians vi. 14, he 
speaks of himself as not only dead, but “ crucified to the world,” the 
excruciating kind of death amplifying the figure and increasing the im- 
pression, 


Cu. VI. 4, 5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 99 





Kal music év KatvdrynTe Cwi¢ Te- also should walk in newness of life. 

5 pinatiowpev. Ei yap obupuroe For if we have been planted to- 5 
yeyovaev TH Gmol@pate Tov gether in the likeness of his death, 
Savdrov avtTov, GAAd kal Tij¢ we shall be also in the likeness of 


5. “Planted (or grown) together :” This implies most intimate connection, 
and with Christ, as the ai7@ in the previous verse shows. The figure is 
taken from the vegetable kingdom ; and the points on which the resemblance 
turns are Christ’s death and resurrection. Our death to sin corresponds 
with the former, and our present moral and future glorious resurrection 
with the latter. The ellipsis in the Jast clause is correctly supplied in our 
English translation, ’AAAd Kai is best rendered ‘truly also, yea even.’ 
Comp. Luke xii. 7, xvi.21. The latter part of the verse expresses the 
twofold resurrection just stated ; the future glorious one being the natural 
result, according to the principles of the Gospel, of the present moral one. 

6, 7. “Our old man:” The sinful element or condition of fallen na- 
ture is here personified. It is figuratively represented as crucified along 
with Christ, the allusion being evidently to the lingering, painful and ig- 
nominious nature of Christ’s death, and also to the similarity in these 
respects attendant on the mortification and destruction of this element. 
“The new man” mentioned in Eph, iv, 24 is the divine principle im- 
planted by the Holy Spirit, which is in accordance with that divine image 
in which man was originally created. This is to grow and to become 
the predominating principle of the whole character, while the other is 
gradually to be subjected and eventually destroyed, as the next clause 
shows.—“ The body of sin:” This is. often explained of the body 
literally understood, and represented as the seat of sinful affections and 
appetites. Similar language occurs in vii. 24, viii. 138, and Col. ii. 11. 
But it is a fatal objection to this view, that “the body of sin” is spo- 
ken of as something to be destroyed, whereas, the literal body is to be 
raised and glorified. This objection cannot be removed by limiting the 
destruction simply to the body’s sinful proneness, for the Apostle affirms 
it of the body itself. The phraseology does not necessarily imply that the 
body is the original seat of sin, and that by connection with it the soul 
becomes morally contaminated ; although, in our present condition, it 
doubtless has an influence on the moral character of our spiritual nature. 
This same body is hereafter to become glorified; but it is not the old 
man or body of sin that is to be vivified. The word’ body, equivalent to 
DE> or 9413 may, by a Hebrew usage, stand for the substance or reality of 
sin, which is figuratively represented as incarnated.—“ Is freed from sin :” 
Literally, justified from it. Compare the similar phrase in Acts xiii. 39. 
It means cleared from its imputation, and liberated from its controlling 
power. See ver. 18. 





100 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seor. VIII. 
6 his resurrection: knowing this, that dvaotdcewe éodueda, TodTO yl- 6 
our old man is crucified with him, v@oxovrec, dre 6 maAatog Tay 
that the body of sin might be de- dvdpwrog ovvectavpwdn, iva 
stroyed, that henceforth we should Katapyn37 70 oGya Tij¢ duap- 

7 notserve sin. For he that isdead Tiac, rod penkéte dovAevery Tac 

8 is freed from sin. Now if we be Tq duaptia. ‘O yap drodavav 7 
dead with Christ, we believe that dedixaiwrat dad ti¢ dwapriac. 

9 we shall also live with him: know- El dé dreddvouev adv XpioTd, 8 
ing that Christ, being raised from TtoTevouev, dtt Kal ovdjoomev 
the dead, dieth no more; death hath at7@, eidérec, drt Xptotoc éyep- 9 


10 no more dominion over him. For 
in that he died, he died unto sin 
once; but in that he liveth, he 


Veic EK vVEKP@Y OvKETL GTO- 
YvioKker’ Ydvarocg adTov ovKETL 
Kuptever. “O yao dnédave, TH 10 


8, 9. The present moral death to sin, which implies also a life to 
righteousness, brings along with it as its Christian consequence, future 
everlasting and glorious life with Christ in heaven. The living with 
Christ which is here spoken of cannot be limited to any moral or 
spiritual condition in this life, because it is represented as an object of 
faith: “ we believe that we shall also live with him.” Whatever of this 
life the Christian obtains here is the mere germ and commencement of 
what he expects to enjoy hereafter. The 9th verse gives the reason for 
such a belief. Christ, having risen from the dead, is forever immortal. 
The Apostle’s language is that of triumph: ‘death no more lords it over 
him.’ “ He ever liveth to make intercession” for those who belong to him, 
and therefore, according to his promise, ‘“ because he liveth they shall live 
also.” Compare Heb. vii. 25, and John xiv. 19; and see the same senti- 
ment in Rom. vy. 10. 

10,"0 yde dréOave- 5 d€¢q° This might be translated thus: ‘ For 
what he died—but what he liveth ;’ that is, the death that he died, the life 
that he lives: See Tholuck. This would be equivalent to the common trans- 
Jation, which is obtained by understanding kata before 6, which is a very 
frequent ellipsis. Literally it would be, ‘according to what.’ The render- 
ing of Macknight, “he who died—he who liveth,” is inadmissible. The 
Greek usage would require either 6¢ with the verb, or 6 with the partici- 
ple.—* He died unto sin:” Rather, ‘ with reference to, for.’ The thought 
is more fully expressed elsewhere. He died both to exp%ate sin by making 
a suitable atonement, and to destroy its power in us.—*Once:” The one 
offering of Christ is forever satisfactory, and cannot be repeated. Compare 
Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10, 12, 14. See also ix. 26, and the note there.— 
“He liveth unto God :” That is, in order to advance the divine honour; 
since the humiliation and subsequent exaltation of “the son of man” not 
only “glorifies” himself, but also “ glorifies God with him .” John xiii. 31. 


Cn. VI. 6-18.] 


duaptia dré8aver épdrat: 8 dé 
11 CH, 6p TO VEO. OtTw Kal byeic 
Aoyigea9e Eavtods vexpod¢ péev 
TH duapria, Caivtac JE TO Yew 
12 év Xptot@ "Inoov. M7) ovv Baot- 
AevéTw 7 Guaptia év TO SvqnTo 
Duav oopate cig TO braxovery 
13 raic éredvpiacc adtov, unde Ta- 
plordvete Ta pédn tuov brAa 
adtkiac TH dwaptia: dAAd Tapa- 
oThoate éavtove TO VEO we ek 
VEKPOV C@VTAC, Kal TA WEAN DUGV 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


101 





liveth unto God. Likewise reckon 11 
ye also yourselves to be dead indeed 
unto sin, but alive unto God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin 12 
therefore reign in your mortal 
body, that ye should obey it in the 
lusts thereof. Neither yield ye 18 
your members as instruments of 
unrighteousness unto sin ; but yield 
yourselves unto God, as those that 
are alive from the dead, and your 
members as instruments of right- 
eousness unto God. For sin shall 14 


14 érAa dikatocbyng TO Ved. ‘A- 


11-13. Thus far the author has described chiefly the effect of a true 
union with Christ in producing a principle of spiritual life incompatible with 
a state of sinfulness. But, inasmuch as its actual developments and ope- 
ration in the Christian’s holiness is, in the present state of being, always 
imperfect and generally so to a very great degree, he now proceeds, in 
view of the Christian profession made in baptism, to exhort to a consistent 
character and conduct. 

“So also you,” &c.: This is founded on our union with Christ before 
spoken of. The exhortation does not lose sight of the truth that here sin 
will exercise some influence, since “there is no man that sinneth not,” and 
therefore the Apostle says, “let not sin re¢gn in your mortal body,” &c. 
The epithet here employed describes the body in its present frail and dying 
condition, in which it is made the organ of sin, in contradistinction to the 
same body immortal and become the instrument of sanctity and happiness, 
Such language gives no ground for the opinion, already adverted to, of the 
body being the seat of sinful passions.—The concluding clause of the 12th 
verse is variously read in ancient authorities. The reading in the received 
Some 
omit the whole clause, and their testimony is followed by Griesbach and 
other editors. Hahn and some others retain the last three words and omit 
the preceding two; and others omit the last four, and conclude the verse 
with avr7. The general sense will be the same, as the obedience to sin is 
shown in yielding to corporeal desires. 

14, “ The law,” as such, conveys no power wherewith to resist sin. 
But “ grace” or the Gospel does in the influence of the Holy Spirit. This 
difference of the two states affords a sufficient reason for the assertion, that 
sin shall not lord it over the Christian. 

15. This verse, which is in striking analogy with the first, states the 
utter incongruity, both with Christian character and profession, of practising 


text after draxovtety is as follows: adtH év Tai¢ ervdvpiate adtov. 


102 





not have dominion over you; for 
ye are not under the law, but under 
15 grace. What then? Shall we sin, 
because we are not under the law, 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. VIII. 


papria yap buay od Kupteboet: 
ov yd tore rd vouov, GAA’ dO 
xdpv. Ti obv ; duaptioopev, bre 15 
ovK eopnev bd vomov, dA’ bd 


yap ; ur) yévoito. OvK oldare, 16 
étt @ maptordvere éavtod¢ Job- 
Aove ele braxony, dovA0t tore 
@ bTaKoveTe, 7ToL duaptiac elc¢ 
Sdvaror, 7} brako7je el¢ diKato- 
obvnv ; Xdpic d& TO eG, Jrt 
Te SovAoL THE awaptiac, vrN- 


but under grace? God forbid. 
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye 
yield yourselves servants to obey, 
his servants ye are to whom ye 
obey ? whether of sin unto death, 
or of obedience unto righteousness ? 
17 But God be thanked, that ye were 


sin. The Apostle rejects with abhorrence the thought of thus abusing the 
grace of the Gospel. In the next he illustrates what he had said, by refer- 
ring to the human relation of master and servant. The last clause requires 
a few illustrative remarks. The words “to death,” ele 8avarov, are omitted 
in several weighty authorities, although the evidence preponderates in their 
favour. If they were not an original part of the text, it woyld be difficult 
to assign a good reason for their insertion, while the apparent want of an- 
tithesis to “ righteousness” may have induced some transcribers to reject 
them. It is not probable that dcxaootvn here means justification ; for then 
the Apostle’s statements would conflict with the general scope of his argu- 
ment throughout the Epistle. Professor Stuart indeed does contend for 
this meaning, But he has not presented any considerations of weight to 
sustain it; and towards the end of his note he substitutes “ eternal life” for 
“justification.” His objection to explaining righteousness by religion, that 
this is identical with obedience, may be answered by the remark, that suc- 
cessive acts of obedience Jead to the formation of a righteous or religious 
character, This is probably what the Apostle means, as in ver, 22, the 
“fruit” of serving God is stated’to be “ holiness ;” to which it might be 
objected with equal plausibility, that this service is itself holiness. But the 
signification most probably is, that such holy service results in the advan- 
tage of possessing a holy habit.—Neither ought the translation to be ‘hap- 
piness,’ for this is not a legitimate meaning of dixacoobvn, although it is a 
necessary result of what it does mean, namely, personal religion, or true 
religiousness of character. In this sense it occurs in Matt. vi. 33, “ the 
kingdom of God and his righteousness.” Thus the phrase corresponds with 
“unto holiness,” el¢ dysaopév in ver. 22. As felicity is the unvarying 
concomitant of such religion, the term affords a very sufficient antithesis 
to death, which expresses the idea of misery. 

17. “ Form of doctrine :’ Tézo¢ has been supposed by some to mean 
a mould into which a substance is poured in order to give it proper shape. 
But the word in this sense never occurs in the New Testament, and the 


= 


Cu. VI. 14-19. ] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 103 





kovoate d& &k Kapdiacg ei¢ dv 
18 wapedé9nre Titov Sidayic* éAev- 
Sepwdévres JE ATO THC djuapTtiac 
19 dovAddnte TH Suxatoobvy.” ’Av- 
Spdirivov Aéyw did THY dadé- 


the servants of sin, but ye have 
obeyed from the heart that form of’ 
doctrine which was delivered you. 
Being then made free from sin, ye 18 
became the servants of righteous- 


vELav TIC sapKo¢ buwv* WoTeo ness. I speak after the manner of 19 
\ ‘ 


terms generally used by Greek writers to express this sense are Aiydo¢ 
and yodv7. Besides, the verbs would not be in keeping with such a figure. 
Form, sketch, outltne, conveys the Apostle’s idea, which he expresses 
also in 2 Tim. i. 13 by the similar word drorbmwot¢.—tThe construction 
of the latter part of the verse is doubtful. Tholuck understands i7n- 
kovoate to be here, as it often is elsewhere, (see in Kypke examples from 
Appian and Josephus,) construed with eic, and resolves the expression 
into imyKovoaTEe ei¢ TiO diday7c d¢ Taped69n dyiv, in compliance with 
the rule that verbs which in the active have the dative of the person, in 
the passive change that into the nominative. So Castalio: paruistis ei 
doctrinze rationi, quee vobis tradita est. Or English translation seems to 
have been made in reference to the same principle: “ Ye have obeyed that 
form of doctrine which was delivered you.” But the marginal reading, 
which is in the original edition, is: ‘“‘ Whereto ye were delivered ;” and this 
is also the reading, with slight varieties of verbal expression, in Wiclif, 
Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and Rheims translations. These old 
English versions followed another construction, which is perhaps to be pre- 
ferted. Although the verb drakoveyv elsewhere in the New Testament 
invariably governs the dative, yet it occurs in the Septuagint with the 
accusative and also with the genitive. See, among other instances, Deut. 
xxi. 18, xxvi. 14, 17. The construction may therefore be, im7Kobtcate 
toTov diayie ei¢ dv. If we are influenced by the dative usage of the 
New Testament, we may still regard the accusative of the noun as flowing 
by attraction from that of the relative. Iapadidwue may be taken in the 
sense of to teach, as it signifies in Luke i. 2, Acts vi. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 2. In 
the last text, the verb and the noun both occur, and though the latter is 
rendered in the text of our translation “ordinances” and in the margin 
“traditions,” the true meaning is undoubtedly instructions delivered or 
taught by St. Paul himself. Thus also the same word ought to be rendered 
in 2 Thess. ii. 15: ‘hold fast the instructions which you have been taught ;’ 
and in iii, 6, ‘according to the znstruction received from us.’ Etymologi- 
cally the word means directions or truths delivered. The best translation 
therefore of the clause is probably this: ‘ Ye have obeyed from the heart 
the form of doctrine in which ye were instructed.—The Apostle thanks 
God for their obedience. Before “ye were,” although is to be supplied. 
Comp. Matt. xi. 25: ‘although thou hast hidden’ &c. 


104 





men, because of the infirmity of 
your flesh ; for as ye have yielded 
your members servants to unclean- 
ness, and to iniquity unto iniquity ; 
even so now yield your members 
servants to righteousness unto 
20 holiness. For when ye were the 
servants of sin, ye were free from 
21 righteousness. What fruit had ye 
then in those things whereof ye 
are now ashamed? for the end of 
22 those things is death. But now 
being made free from sin, and be- 
come servants to God, ye have your 
fruit unto holiness, and the end, 
23 everlasting life. For the wages of 
sin is death ; but the gift of God is 
eternal life, through Jesus Christ 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. VIII. IX. 
yap mapeorhoare Ta péAn bua 
dpdAa TH dxadapoia Kai TH dvo- 
pia ele tiv dvouiay, obtTw viv 
Tapanrioate Ta péhn buoy dov- 
Aa ry Sikatocbvy ele dytaopnor. 
"Ore yde dovAot ire Tij¢ auap- 20 
tiac, EAedVepor are TH dtKaLo- 
obvy. Tiva obv xaprov elyete 21 
tote &d’ ol¢ viv éxaoyivedde ; 

TO yao TéAo¢ éxeivwv Ydvaroc. 
Novi dé éhevdepwdévrec dd Tij¢ 22 
duaptiac, dovAwdévtes d& TO 
Ved, Myere TOV KapTOVv bua eic¢ 
dytaonov, 70 68 TéAOG Swijy aid- 
viov, Tad yap opouvia ti¢ duap- 23 
tiac Sdvatoc, TO bE ydpiopwa TOD 
Seo Cw7 aldvioc év Xpioro 
*Inood TO Kupiw Tov. 


our Lord. 


18-23. Sin and righteousness are here personified and represented as 
masters of conflicting interests. The author remarks that he speaks in an 
ordinary human way, taking his illustrations from common life; and this 
in order the better to adapt himself to the weak condition of his readers. 
But he does not refer to it so much intellectually as spiritually. And this 
weak condition, be it observed, is not stated as peculiar to the Roman 
Christians, but is predicable of Christians of all ages in a greater or less 
degree. And hence it is that religious truth must ever be presented, not 
in the very best conceivable form, but in that which is best adapted to the 
condition of the party addressed. The weakness of our present sinful state is 
what is intended.—“ To iniquity unto iniquity.” Comp. i. 17, “from faith 
to faith.” Increase is the idea in both cases, In the real Christian, faith 
ever grows; in the sinner, iniquity becomes stronger and stronger, verify- 
ing the terrific announcement, “he that is filthy, let him be filthy still.” 
Rev. xxi. 11. In the very truthful and striking language of Olshausen : 
“ Sin continually brings forth sin, only she produces figures ever more 
frightful from her teeming womb. Even so does righteousness produce 
by degrees more gloriously, until she becomes holiness.” 

On ver. 21, Griesbach and other critical editors place the interrogation 
point after then: ‘What fruit therefore had ye then? The usual punctua- 
tion, which appears in our Bibles, is, at least, as good. The reader can 
hardly fail to remark the antithesis between dre, T6re, and viv, vuri dé, 
the one denoting the former sinful condition, and the other the present 
Christian state-—The word end is best understood in the sense of reward. 





Cx. VI. 19-VIl.1.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 105 


In ver. 23 wages and free gift are in evident contrast, the one expressing 
due desert, and the other unmerited gratuity. Death and life are also 
contrasted, the epithet of e¢ernal being applied to the latter, as is done also 
in v. 21. 


SE .OTIO Ne ds 


Cuar. VII.-VIII. 17. 


THE LAW CAN NEITHER JUSTIFY NOR SANCTIFY. IT IS THE GOSPEL WHICH 
ALONE CAN MEET, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE WANTS OF MAN’S WEAK AND 
SINFUL CONDITION, 


VII. "“H dyvoeite, ddeAdgoi, (yivé- Know ye not, brethren, (for I VII. 
Gkovot yae vowov AadG,) bre 6 speak to them that know the law,) 
vomwog Kuplever Tov dv3pwrov, how that the law hath dominion 


Cuap. vii. Christians are not connected with the law, either as a means of 
acceptance with God or of their sanctification ; for it can neither place men 
in such a state, nor give them grace to live a holy life. It can but show 
clearly the nature of sin, excite its propensities, and condemn the sinner. 
Freedom from the condemnation and dominion of sin, and acceptance with 
God, together with power to live a holy life, are peculiar to the Gospel. 
And hence results obligation on the part of the Christian to live in accord- 
ance with its nature, and also with a view to obtain its ultimate blessings. 

The connection of justification and sanctification is here, as elsewhere 
in this Epistle, evidently implied and indeed avowed. The former is the 
principle and germ of the latter. The grace of justification developed in 
its practical efficacy necessarily produces sanctification. This fact of Chris- 
tianity may account for the Apostle’s transition from the one to the other, 
which thereby becomes perfectly natural. 

Ver. 1. “I speak to them that know the law.” For the various mean- 
ings which have been ascribed to the word law in this verse, 1 must refer 
the reader to the commentators. The Mosaic law in general, the ceremo- 
nial law in particular, the law of the marriage relation specially, have their 
respective advocates. It cannot be the ceremonial law, for the whole tenor 
of the chapter is opposed to such a supposition. Nor is there reason to 
limit it to the law respecting marriage, for what is said of this is confined 
to two or three verses, and is merely illustrative. The simplest and most 
natural sense would seem to be, moral law in general, not merely as exist- 
ing or even as first promulgated by Moses; but as the law under which 


106 


over aman as long as he liveth? 
For the woman which hath a hus- 
band is bound by the law to her 
husband, so long as he liveth; but 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


ép’ ba0v xpovov GH; ‘Hyde 
bravdpog yuri) TO C@vre dvdpi 
déderat vou: bdv dé droddvyg 
6 dvie, Katipynta and Tow 


(Seer. IX. 





2 


if the husband be dead, she is 
loosed from the law of her husband. 


vouov tod dvdpic. “Apa ovv 8 


man as aresponsible creature of God always was and ever must be. The 
Apostle addresses himself to those who have a general knowledge of the 
application and bearing of moral law. The word is at first without the 
article, which however is employed on a renewed mention of the subject in 
the next clause. Comp. viii. 9, 11, where “ spirit” occurs first without and 
then with the article, although expressive of precisely the same idea. 

“ As long as he liveth :” From the time of Origen to the present day, 
some interpreters have predicated this of the law, translating ‘as long as 
it liveth, that is, remaineth in force, But this is certainly a very harsh 
sense, and inadmissible, unless required by absolute necessity. To say that 
the law rules the man as long as it has force is not, indeed, a mere truism, 
but much nearer to one than can be allowed in such a writer as St. Paul. 
The advocates of this view have appealed to the following verses, where 
they suppose the man or husband to correspond with the law and the woman 
or wife with the Jews or those under the law. But the correctness of such 
correspondence cannot be proved, and of course any argument drawn from 
it is uncertain, and may be erroneous. The usual meaning, which appears 
in our common translation, is more in accordance with the language in 
1 Cor. vii. 89, where the same phrase occurs with the additional words, 
“her husband.” And in ver. 4, the persons addressed are said to be dead, 
not the law; and so in ver. 6, according to the true reading dro¥avérrec, 
‘we having died.’ The Apostle might undoubtedly have spoken of the law 
as dead ; but he has chosen to express this condition as that of the persons, 
And so also of himself in Gal. ii. 19, “I am dead to the law.” Perhaps 
he preferred this phraseology on account of his having before spoken of 
Christians as “ dead to sin,” vi. 2; and perhaps, also, from his reluctance 
to represent God’s moral law as in any sense dead, since it cgntains within 
itself a principle of perpetua! life. 

2, 3. “ From the law of her husband :” That is, from the law which 
binds her to her husband.—’Edv yévnrar—yevouévnv: become to, that is, 
be married to. See Robinsen under yevowae I. 4, a) ad fin.—These two 
verses seem to be introduced as illustration, and merely to convey the 
thought that death dissolves the marriage obligation. It is neither neces- 
sary nor expedient to draw out the analogy any farther. Its application 
is made in the next verse. The general idea therefore appears to be this, 
‘ As, in the marriage relation, the death of either party dissolves the obliga- 


Cu. VII. 2-4.] - EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 107 
COvroc Tod dvdpoc ovyadic ypn- So then, if, while Aer husband 3 
parioet, av yévntat dvdpl Etépw’ liveth, she be married to another 
éav d& droddvy 6 dvip, éAev- man, she shall be called an adulter- 
Sépa gotiv dd TOV VowWov, TOU ess; but if her husband be dead, 
fun elvat adtiy joryadioa, yevo- she is free from that law, so that 
pévnv dvdpt étépw. “Qote, ddeA- she is no adulteress, though she be 
pot pov, kat duetc E9avaTw@OynTe married to another man. Where- 4 


TO VOU OLA TOV GapaToG TOV 
Xptorov, sic TO yevéodar buaic 
ETepW, TO EK VEKPOV EyEepdEYTL, 


fore, my brethren, ye also are be- 
come dead to the law by the body 
of Christ; that ye should be mar- 


tion entered into, so your (figurative) death to the law releases you from 
any connection with it as the instrumentality of your acceptance with and 
sanctification before God,’ 

The attempt to carry out the author’s analogy into particular detail has 
given rise to a vast variety of theories. The reader who desires to become 
acquainted with them may perhaps find sufficient to gratify his curiosity 
in the notes of Tholuck and Olshausen, and the authors to whom they refer. 

4. The Apostle now applies his comparison, and represents Christian 
believers as “dead to the law.” He does not speak of it as a code of 
morals, which, although no human effort can attain to its perfect excellence, 
is notwithstanding to be perpetually set up as the divine standard (Matt. 
y. 17, 18), but rather as a means of acceptance with God. This accords 
with the general scope of the Epistle, and also with the particular one of 
this chapter.—* The body of Christ :” This means most certainly his literal 
personal body which was offered on the cross, and which thereby effected 
the figurative death here spoken of. This death, like that of the one mar- 
ried party which releases the other from previous obligation, prepares the 
way for your becoming connected with another, him who hath been raised 
from the dead. Stripped of all figure, the idea is, that Christ’s atonement 
enables us to look for acceptance and sanctification to a vital union with 
him, Thence (to resume again the figure,) proceeds the legitimate off- 
spring of this spiritual alliance, namely, the fruits of good works tending 
to advance God’s glory. 

5, 6. These verses express two contrary states, one, that of fallen sin- 
ful nature ; the other, that of Christian character elevated by the Gospel 
to a new and spiritual service of God.—‘In the flesh:” This does not 
mean under the law, in a legal condition merely ; as some have explained 
it, referring to such places as Rom. iv. 1, Gal. iii. 8, Heb. ix. 10, and other 
texts of the same kind where the law and its external ordinances are repre- 
sented as fleshly. According to the common use of the phrase it means ‘his 
sinful condition’ under the influence of carnal lusts. Thus in vii. 18, “in 
me, that is, in my flesh ;” in viii. 8, 9, “they who are in the flesh—ye are 


108 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. IX. 





ried to another, even to him who is fra Kapropophowpev 7H eG. 
raised from the dead, that we “Ore ydp quev év TH oapki, Ta 5 
should bring forth fruit unto God. radiata TOY duapTiav, Ta dud 

5 For when we were in the flesh, the Tov vémov, évypyeito év Toi¢ 
motions of sins, which were by the péAeow qudv ele TO Kaptodo- 





not in the flesh ;” in Eph. ii. 11, “ Gentiles in the flesh.” No doubt the 
persons spoken of were under the law; but the sinfulness of their character 
while in such a condition, is the particular point which the phrase denotes. 

“ The passions of sins ;” that is sinful passions.—“ Which were by the 
law :” Locke and Macknight translate: ‘ under the law,’ which the Greek 
unquestionably admits. But the common translation is nevertheless pre- 
ferable. For the Apostle intending to display the law as exhibiting to 
transgressors the nature of sin and its effects on the awakened conscience, 
as his argument led him and as he does in vs. 7 et seq., here speaks of 
sinful passions as developing themselves in action by the law, although he 
means that the law made their sinfulness the more conspicuous, and became 
the occasion of their being excited to their natural course of opposition. 
Thus in Matt. x. 34, 35, the coming of Christ is said to do what it merely 
gave occasion to sinful human passions to perpetrate. This view gives 
point to the question in ver. '7, “is the law sin?’ Such an objection im- 
plying the most thorough reductio ad absurdum, might very plausibly be 
raised on the representation that sinful passions were by the law, but not 
on account of their being said to exist wnder it. In this way too the 
phrase retains uniformly the same sense, whereas Locke and Macknight 
are obliged to translate it differently in different places. Thus in ver. 5 and 
8, they translate dvd under or during, in ver. 7 through or by, and in ver. 11 
where it occurs twice, they employ both words. Besides, according to 
their interpretation, which explains the phrase “in the flesh” of “ the state of 
the Jews under the law of Moses,” both phrases express exactly the same 
thing.—* In our members.” This is equivalent to the more general ex- 
pression, in our body; though it may be employed to mark the relation 
between particular members and certain sins, in the commission of which 
they become instrumental.—* To bring forth fruit unto death :” Such is 
the result of a natural sinful condition, and it is here placed in evident con- 
trast with the result of the Christian’s union with Christ, as expressed in 
the previous verse under a figure drawn from the marriage relation. 

In opposition to the sinful condition before described, the author pro- 
ceeds to say as follows: ‘But now, we, having died, have become freed 
from the law in (or by) which we were held.’ The common reading is 
dro8avévtoc, which being in the genitive singular, refers, of course, to 
vouov, This is followed by our English translation : “ the law, that being 
dead.” But the marginal reading in the original edition has “ being dead to 


Ca. VII. 5-7.] 


6 





pjroa 7 Yavdtw, Nvrvi dé 
karnpynonuev amd Tov vépov, 
d7vodavérrec, &y @ KaTeryoueda, 
Led 4 e~ 7 
ore dovAebery Hudc &v Katvo- 
THTL TVvEvpaTog Kal ov Tadaté- 
THTL Ypampwatoc. 


EPISTLE TO, THE ROMANS. 


109 


law, did work in our members to 
bring forth fruit unto death. But 
now we are delivered from the law, 
that being dead wherein we were 
held ; that we should serve in new- 
ness of spirit, and not 7m the oldness 


7 Ti ovdv éporvpev; 6 vouoc duap- of the letter. 
Tia ; aj yévoito’ GAAd THY awap- What shall we say then? Js the 
that.” And so Tyndale and Cranmer: “ We are delivered from the law, 


and deed from that (unto it: C.) whereunto we were in bondage.” Also 
the Genevan: “ we are delivered from the lawe being dead unio yt.” As 
usual, Wiclif and the Rheims agree with the Vulgate and other Latin 
authorities, soluti sumus a lege mortis, the former having, “ we ben un- 
bounden fro the lawe of deeth,” and the latter, “we are loosed from the 
law of death.” The other English versions before cited follow the true 
reading dzoSavéytec, which is supported by the best ancient manuscripts 
and versions, also by the figurative language of the author in the immediate 
context.—* Newness of spirit, oldness of letter.” These phrases denote 
the new, spiritual dispensation of the Gospel, and the old one of the Law, 
the merely outward and literal sense of which showed its imperfection. 
The former is the development of the full spiritual meaning of the latter 
and of what it adumbrated. In 2 Cor. iii. 6, the Apostle employs the 
same language: “ Not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter killeth 
but the spirit giveth life.” That is, the law condemns,and punishes, but 
the Gospel acquits and favours with unmerited blessings. 

7. “What shall we say then? is the law sin?’ The force of the 
question results from the representation made in ver. 5, of the law becom- 
ing the occasion of sin, which had been stated in the terms, ‘sinful passions 
which were by the law.’ The imputation is promptly rejected. Yet sin is 
made known by the law: and the tenth commandment is alleged as an 
illustration of this: The law is not sin. No, certainly: but it gives a 
fuller consciousness of sin, than otherwise I could have, and becomes the 
occasion of my sinful propensity operating on me in opposition to law. 
“Not only is the law not a teacher of sin, but it is sin’s accuser.” Theo- 
doret, Opera, Tom. iii. p. 53. 

As the Apostle now employs the first person, and continues to em- 
ploy it until the third verse of the next chapter, this seems to be a proper 
place to examine whether he speaks particularly of himself, or personifies 
a character; and, if he does speak of himself, whether he describes his 
Christian condition, or a state antecedent thereto. 

That St. Paul cannot intend to limit to himself what he here says, is 
most probable, inasmuch as he manifestly depicts the experience of a class; 


1 


110 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. IX. 


law sin? God forbid. Nay, Thad not tiav ove tyvwr, el pa) bia v6- 
known sin, but by thelaw: forlhad pov: tiv te yao éxvOupiay ovdK 
not known lust, except the lawhad {Jdecv, el juz) 6 vouoc tLeyev > od 





and, as his statement applies to himself as well as to all others of the class 
described, and as he employs the first person, it would seem unreasonable 
to exclude him from the class intended. It is of little consequence, as 
regards the interpretation of the whole portion, whether he is speaking of 
himself as an individual of a class, or whether he personifies such class. 
But the other point of discussion has a direct bearing on the interpretation 
of the portion, namely, whether it is the really Christian state of the party 
spoken of, or an antecedent one, which is here intended; whether it be a 
regenerate or ante-regenerate condition. Olshausen says, that all exposi- 
tors agree that “7-15 applies to the state before regeneration, as the 
Apostle indicates by the aorist that the state is gone by. But whether 
14-24 is also to be so considered is uncertain, since in this section Paul 
makes use of the present only, while viii. 2, &c. the aorist again appears.” 
The argument from the change of tense does not seem to be of much force, 
as the change naturally arises from the author’s method of representing his 
subject. Divines, both of ancient and modern times, have differed respect- 
ing the main point. Among the fathers, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
state the ante-regeneration view, while Augustin and others maintain the 
opposite theory. Modern theologians, from the time of the Reformation, 
have also differed in the same way. It is impossible to arrive at any satis- 
factory conclusion on this particular, by settling the possible meaning of 
some phrases which may occur in the latter portion. While it is certainly 
susceptible of proof that the language, “ carnal—sold under sin,” and much 
of the accompanying description, are strictly inapplicable to the inwardly 
regenerate Christian; yet the Scriptures supply us with many instances of 
most pious men, such, for instance, as Daniel, Job, and David, applying simi- 
lar language to themselves as expressions of penitential confession ; and such 
expressions of self-abasement have always characterized the holiest. Yet, 
on the other hand, the fact that language of this kind is used by such men 
in the way of penitent confession, will not authorise the inference, that it is 
intended of them when it occurs in a logical train of argument. The scope 
and general design of the author afford therefore the best clew to ascer- 
tain his meaning; and this I have endeavoured to present in the analysis. 
J shall now attempt to explain the portion in accordance with the view 
there given. 

The Apostle is speaking of the state of a person before he becomes a 
Christian. He describes the conflict of such a one’s natural feelings and 
passions with his reason, conscience, and imperfect knowledge of God’s 
law. Still, as the same imperfect condition and sinful tendency exist, 


Cu. VII. 8, 9.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. hid 


8 éxidvunoec. "Adopurv d& Aa- said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, 8 
Bovoa 1) duaptia dia tie EvToA7¢ taking occasion, by the command- 
Kateipydoaro év éuol Taoav ért- ment wrought in me all manner of 
Svuiav: ywpic yao vbuov duap- concupiscence. For without the law 

9 tia vexpd. "Eye 6& &wv ywpic sin was dead. For I was alive 9 


though in a modified degree, even in the truest Christian, it is very proba- 
ble that the sacred author expresses himself in language drawn from his 
own Christian experience at different times, and such language may well 
be used of the regenerate, as suitably depicting their inward emotions. 
All this may be allowed, while it may still be maintained, that the Apos- 
tle’s argument compels us to give one definite exposition of his words, and 
to maintain that they describe one clearly marked condition, The view of 
Olshausen is worthy of attentive consideration. “The Apostle sets out, 
vii. 9, from a state in which the man is living entirely without law, and 
closes viii. 11, with the glorification of the bodily substance. The question 
occurs here, how many stages of development are properly distinguished ? 
Four clearly present themselves. F%rst, a life without law, in which sin is 
(comparatively) dead; nex?, a life under the law, in which sin becomes 
alive and has dominion; further, a state, in which by the power of Christ, 
the spirit has dominion and sin is (in a great degree) mastered ; finally, 
the state of the entire separation of sin by the glorification of the bodily, 
substance.” 

8. “Sin:” Not the overt act of sin, but the sinful principle, which is so 
far personified as to be represented as an agent. “Taking occasion, by the 
commandment wrought in me.” Most likely the phrase, “by the com- 
mandment,” should be connected with the words that immediately follow. 
Thus the sentiment will be, that sin, by means of the commandment 
wrought, &c. And this certainly agrees best with the eleventh verse, which 
connects “the commandment” with “wrought,” for it is there said, “ by the 
commandment deceived me, and by it slew me.”—Sin is the agent that 
works all émvdvpiar, that is, all illicit desire-— Without the law sin is 
dead.” This is true absolutely. If there were no moral law at all, there 
could be no living and active sin at all. And the same is true in all the 
degrees in which sin can be conceived to exist. The sin is in proportion 
to the moral law as known or capable of being known, 

9,10. “I was alive :” Does this language express simply the fact that 
the speaker was at one time living without a right appreciation of the 
character and bearing of God’s moral law. Suchasupposition would agree 
with the context, and give a correct exposition. The Apostle may intend 
to say merely this, that antecedently to the time of which he is speaking, 
he, or the party spoken of, was passing his existence without a right esti- 
mate of the nature and purport of God’s law. Still, the antithesis with the 


112 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. IX. 





without the law once; but when véuov troté- &ADobong dé Tij¢ 

the commandment came, sin re- évToA7j¢ 7 duaptia dvégnoev, 
10 vived, and I died. And the com- ¢@y@ dé dré¥avov- Kai eipédn 10 

mandment, which was ordained to pot 1) évtoda) 7) ele Gwiv, abtn 


language of the next verse, “I died,” does seem to demand a fuller sense. 
“T died,” expresses, certainly, a consciousness of being condemned, and in 
a state of moral and penal death. It would seem most reasonable, then, to 
give to the antithetic phrase, “I was living,” a meaning somewhat analo- 
gous, thus: ‘I was not properly conscious of sin, I did not experience the 
influence of law as the occasion of its action, the influence of law either on 
my perceptions of the character of sin, or in becoming the instrunientality 
of rousing my sinful passions into life and energy.’ 

“But, when the commandment came ;” or, the commandment having 
come. According to Tholuck on ver. 8, évroA# means the particular com- 
mandment not to covet, and thus in Heb. vii. 18 the commandment has 
been restricted to the law of the priesthood. See my note there, which is 
intended to show that in both places it is better to take the word in its 
most comprehensive sense as equivalent to véuoc, law. There is not suf- 
ficient reason for the limitation. On the contrary, what is applicable to 
law being predicated also of commandment, the probability is that both are 
equally general in meaning. The coming of the commandment is not to 
be explained in reference to the historical introduction of the Mosaic law 
at Mount Sinai. The chief objection to this interpretation is not that it 
involves an unnatural figure, as the Apostle would then represent his per- 
sonified character as living before the time of the Mosaic law, through its 
whole period, and into the Christian dispensation. If he personates human 
nature in different states, such a representation will be allowable, although, 
at first view, it may appear incongruous. But, as the different conditions 
and states of mind here described existed, beyond all doubt, in a greater 
or less degree, among individuals, whether living before or during or after 
the Mosaic dispensation, it becomes necessary to take some view of the 
phrase ‘which will accord with this fact. Doubtless the Apostle speaks of 
the influence of Jaw on the awakening conscience, to which it comes home, 
as we say with a natural depth of meaning founded in truth, enlightening, 
impressing, and warning. To the same purpose, Gal. iii, 23, 25: “ Before 
faith came, after that faith is come.” The idea here intended cannot be 
limited to the historical coming of the Gospel. It expresses also the liber- 
ating influence of faith on the believer’s mind,—‘Sin revived, but I died, 
and the very commandment which was intended to produce happiness was 
found to result in misery,’ “Sin” is the carnal principle in our fallen 
nature, and the “I” is the better part of the man, his rational spiritual 
principle under the influence, in a greater or less degree, of conscience and 


Ox. VII. 10-13.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 113 


11 elie Ydévarov. ‘H yde dpapria life, I found to be unto death. For 11 
ddoppy AaBovoa dia tI¢ évTo- sin, taking occasion, by the com- 
Ane &énrdrnoé we kat dv avrij¢ mandment deceived me, and by it 

12 dréxrewev. “Qote 6 ev vouog slew me. Wherefore the law is 12 
dywog, kal 7 évtoda wyia Kat holy; and the commandment holy, 

13 dtxaia kat dyadh. TO ody dya- and just, and good. Was then 13 


moral law, as impressed thereon.—The phrases, “sin revived,” or, became 
active, dominant; and, “I died,” are manifestly antithetic. As the one 
gains or exerts strength, the other feels its own weakness in a proportion- 
ably increasing degree, and recognises also its ruined condition. 

11, 12. “Sin,” in other words, the carnal principle. It “deceived me :” 
The insidious character of sin is what is here intended. There may be an 
allusion to the words of Eve in the Septuagint of Gen. iii. 13, “the serpent 
beguiled me,” 7jmd7n0é we. This same carnal principle is also here repre- 
sented as the source of that death of which in the former clause, the law is 
said to have been the occasion. Here the language is, “sin slew me,” 
dréxrevve; in 2 Cor. iii. 6, it is, “the letter (meaning the law,) killeth,” 
arokreivet. In the one text, the law is said to do what, in the other, is 
ascribed to the carnal principle or fallen nature. Language of this kind is 
usual in common life, and abounds also in Holy Scripture. Thus we read 
that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” that “Pharaoh hardened his heart,” 
and “that the heart of Pharaoh was hardened ;” (Exod. vii. 13, viii. 32, 
vii. 14;) the last phrase expressing the ostensible and undeniable fact, the 
preceding one, the personal agency of the man himself, and the first the 
divine permission. Perhaps the most striking instance of this kind of 
language may be found in the scriptural account of David’s numbering the 
people. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, it is said, that “the anger of the Lord was 
kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go num- 
ber Israel” &c.; while the same thing in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, is ascribed to the 
Devil: “Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number 
Israel.” The theory whereby such seemingly contradictory declarations 
are reconciled, is the very simple one, of the agent speaking or acting as 
the principal: qui facit per alium facit per se. Thus, in the case under 
consideration, the law is the occasion, sinful passion the cause. “By the 
commandment,” and “by it,” are evidently connected respectively with 
the verb that follows; and, as was before said, determine the connection of 
the phrase, “by the commandment,” in the 8th verse, to be with the sub- 
sequent verb. Thus it is evident from the foregoing representation, that 
the law is in all respects, excellent, and not at all the cause of sin, however 
it may have been the occasion of developing and even of exciting it. 

13. Nothing now could be more natural, than to repel the idea that 
God’s moral law, which must be essentially good, could become the cause 

8 


114 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. IX. 


that which is good made death unto dv éuol yéyove Ydvatoc; ji) 
me? God forbid. But sin, thatit yévorro* dAAd 7 duaprias iva 
might appear sin, working death gavq duapria, did Tod dyadovd 
in me by that which is good; that roe Katepyagoutévyn Idvarov, iva 
sin by the commandment might be- yévyjrac kaW’ brepBodrrv duap- 
14 come exceeding sinful. For we twAdg 7 dwaptia did tie évTo- 
know that the lawis spiritual; but Ajc. Oldawev ydo, dre 6 vopoc 14 
mrevpaTiKoc Eat: bya dé aap- 


of ruin. Such is the thought in the first clause of this verse. TO dyadé1- 
Emphatically, the good thing, the very counterpart of him whom it de- 
scribes and emanates from, and of whom alone, personally considered, it 
cah in its fullest sense be affirmed, Comp. Matt. xix. 17. 

'H duapria, like 76 dya6v, is the subject of a verb, which may be and 
probably is yéyove. If so, the meaning will be: ‘not the good (law of God), 
but sin became the cause of my ruin.’ Thus the punctuation may be (but 
this is not necessary,) that which Griesbach has introduced, namely a colon 
after 7) duaptia. In this case, the anarthrous dwapria which follows, may be 
nominative to davy. Then davq and Katepyagouévn may be connected, 
and the construction be thus: ‘that sin might appear working’ &c.; or, 
without such connection, that sin, working death by means of the good 
(law) might appear, that is, that its true nature might become known.— 
But the verse admits another construction, which, as it preserves the ordi- 
nary usage of the article with the subject and omits it with the predicate, 
seems preferable. According to it, the thought runs thus: ‘ Was then the 
good (law) the cause of my ruin? Certainly not; but sin, that it might 
appear sin, (was) working my ruin by means of the good (law,) that (or so 
that,) by means of the commandment, sin might appear (be seen to be,) 
excessively sinful.’ According to this view 7jv is to be understood with the 
participle katepyacouévy ; or this might be considered as expressive of the 
present tense, as in Hebrew.—Still, there is another construction, which 
is probably the best. According to it, 7) duapria, as I said before, becomes 
the subject of yéyove, and the next line, closely connected with it, expresses 
the development of sin and its ruinous effects. . The sense’ which results is 
as follows: ‘ Was then the good (law) the cause of my ruin? Certainly 
not; but sin (was the cause of it,) which “ that it might appear sin,” in other 
words, to show (or showing) its character, wrought ruin by means of the good 
(law), thus displaying its detestable nature.’ The concluding clause of the 
verse from the second iva, is merely a fuller exhibition of the last idea. 

14. The Apostle’s mind dwells on the absurd suggestion which he had 
before in ver, 7, indignantly repelled, “is the law sin?” and which he had 
just denied. The illative particle “for” here used implies the confutation 
already made. On the contrary, we know God’s law to be spiritual. The 


On. VIT. 14-18.] 





KiKkdc elu, TeTpapévog bd Tay 
15 duapriav. "O yao Katepydfowat 
9 4 > ‘ “ 7 
od ywedoKkw od yde 0 9érw 
TOVTO Tpdaaw, GAA’ O [LLdG TOTO 
16 ro®. Ei d& 6 od BéAw TodTO 
TO, TLUPHUL TO VOW, OTL Ka- 
17 Adc. Novi 68 odkéte &yo KaTep- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


116 


I am carnal, sold under sin. For 15 
that which I do I allow not: for 
what I would, that do I not; but 
what I hate, that doI. If then I 16 
do that which I would not, I con- 
sent unto the law that 7 ¢s good. 
Now then it is no more I that doit, 17 


yasouat abT6, GAA’ 7 oikovoa év put sin that dwelleth in me. ForI 18 


18 guot dpaptia. Oida yde, dre 


word denotes superiority, excellence in the highest degree, and the noun is 
often employed in the same sense. See note on John vi. 63, in the Essay 
on our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum, p. 101.—‘“ But I am carnal, sold 
under sin.” This expresses our natural inability, subjection to fleshly 
inclinations and sinful indulgence. In the Jast phrase, some have imagined 
an allusion to the Roman usage of selling property sub hasta. But it is 
much more probable that sin is personified and represented as a master to 
whom the wretched man had become a slave, compelled to obey his 
behests. This is in harmony with the language in the former chapter, 
where righteousness and iniquity are represented under the same figure. 
We have the phrase also in the Old Testament. Thus Ahab and others 
are said to have “sold themselves to work wickedness in the sight of the 
Lord,” 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25, 2 Kings xvii. 17; and the same is said of 
wicked and abandoned men in 1 Mace. i. 15, “They were sold to do mis- 
chief.” The figure denotes most undoubtedly a state of subserviency to sin 
_ as to a despot lording it over the imbecile, subjugated wretch, and is there- 
fore quite incompatible with the desirable condition of Christian freedom. 

15-20. What follows is a vivid and graphical description of the percep- 
tions and feelings which arise in the soul of the man who is just beginning 
to experience the influence of God’s moral Jaw on his spiritual being. I 
shall first note such particulars as seem to require elucidation, and then 
state the result in a paraphrase. 

Here Olshausen again calls the attention of the reader to the change of 
the tense, from the past before employed, to the present, which follows to 
the end of the chapter. Hence he concludes that the subsequent represent- 
ation is of a more general nature than the preceding, and comprehends the 
conflicts even of the regenerate mind, the man in his Christian state. I 
have already remarked that the use of the present is quite natural. It 
makes the exhibition the more graphical, and brings the personified condi- 
tion directly before the mind. It seems also to arise spontaneously from 
the statement made in the 14th verse, that “the law is spiritual,” which, 
expressing a present as well as a past and also an immutable fact, is natu- 
rally followed by a description of a present conflict in the carnal man. It 


116 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. IX. 





know that in me, that is, in my 00& olwet év éuol, TodT’ Eotw év 
flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for 7% oapKi pov, dyadov~ 76 yd 
to will is present with me, but éAev mapdxertai pot, TO dé 
how to perform that which is good Katepydeodar 7d Kahdv ody 

19 I find not. For the good that I evpioxw. Od ydp 6 JéAw, TOW 19 


is not to be questioned that some passages may be applicable to a Christian 
state, and perhaps the conflicts of this state which the author had experi- 
enced, did suggest or modify the language; but it does not follow from any 
part of the description, that the conflicts of the regenerate were intended to 
be portrayed. 

T'vwvéoxw may retain its usual meaning, to know, provided it be regarded 
as emphatic, declaring a want of proper knowledge of the cause, full char- 
acter, and results of what is done. But another meaning is also supported 
by usage, fo regard kindly, to like, to approve of. This has been objected 
to on the ground that it produces a tautology, as the same idea is expressed 
by the word will. To this it might be replied that the particle for in the 
latter half of the verse may, as well as that in the former, be illative of the 
condition expressed in the verse preceding. Still this is unnecessary ; for 
certainly one may give as a reason for not approving a course of action, 
that it is opposed to his inclination, 

Lipuonw literally, I speak along with; that is, 1 concur with—* But 
now:” This is not so much a notation of time, as a formula introducing 
what has a close and logical connection with what had preceded. See the 
note on Heb. viii. 6.—“‘ No more:” This must not be regarded as imply- 
ing that the speaker, the I, according to the Apostle’s phrase, had formerly 
done himself what he now ascribes to indwelling sin. It rather intimates 
that he is not at all to be regarded as the agent. The I is the better part 
of the man, his reason and conscience. This better part is enslaved by the 
sinfulness of fallen nature, and, in-despite of it, the tyrannical master carries 
out his iniquitous opposition to the holy law. 

“In me, that is, in my flesh:” The highly figurative representation 
which pervades the whole portion compels the author to make an occa- 
sional transition. Sometimes the pronoun designates the better, sometimes 
the worse part of the personified man. Before it was the former; here it 
is the latter, as he himself explains it—*Flesh:” That is, the carnal 
nature, the sinful tendency; so called doubtless from its inferior, corrupt- 
ing and degrading tendencies, and therefore often set in contradistinction to 
spirit. Comp. John iii. 6, “ that which is born of the flesh-is flesh, and ‘that 
which is born of the Spirit is spirit;” and Gal. v. 17, “the flesh lusteth 
against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.” In this carnality of 
nature there is no good; evil is its essential element, or rather its very sub- 
stance. The Apostle, however, does not here speak entirely in the abstract; 


Cx. VIT. 19-21.] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 117 





dyadév, dad’ 6 od 9éAw KaKdr, 
20 todvTo mpdoow. Hi dé 6 od VéAW 
&y6, TOTO TOLD, OVKETL EYO Ka- 
Tepydfouat avTo, dA’ 1) oikovoa 


would, I do not; but the evil which 
I would not,that I do. Now if Ido 20 
that I would not, it is no more I 
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in 


21 év éuot duaptia. Evpioxw dpa me. I find then a law, that when 21 


for he proceeds to say, that, in the condition all along before spoken of, his 
wish accords with the law, but he is incompetent to carry it out in holy 
obedience.—* To will:” This word may express the bent of the whole 
inner man, according to which the individual shall be influenced both in 
character and conduct. Or it may denote merely the inefficient wish or 
desire, not followed by any corresponding character or conduct. In this 
latter sense it must be understood here and in the context, as the slightest 
examination will evince.—At the commencement of the clause, the word 
although should be supplied. Many very important authorities omit 
ody evpioxw, and read simply od. The idea may then be thus expressed : 
‘ Although the desire is present with me, the doing what is good is not.’— 
This is followed by a repetition of what had been before said, with the view 
probably of strengthening the impression, and perhaps also in order to in- 
timate the painfulness of the condition by dwelling on the description. 

The general sense of these verses seems to be as follows: ‘I do not ap- 
prove of what I do; for I do not do the thing that I wish, on the contrary 
I do that [hate. In the very act then of doing what I do not wish to do, 
I acquiesce in the excellence of God’s law, which commands the contrary 
to what I reluctantly do. This being so, it may well be said, that it is by 
no means I that do it, my reason and conscience take no part in the action ; 
this is attributable to the sinfulness of my nature, which ever clings to and 
lords it over me. For, alas! in my natural condition, thus under the influ- 
ence of sin, there is nothing spiritually good. The desire indeed exists, but 
it is followed by no practical result in effecting anything good. <A repeti- 
tion of what has before been said, can alone describe so miserable a 
condition.’ 

21-24. The construction of the Greek is difficult, owing somewhat to 
the position of the words and somewhat to the repetition of the pronoun, 
which result in the want of an easy grammatical or rhetorical flow.—The 
literal unpointed translation is as follows: ‘I find then the law to me wish- 
ing to do the good that the bad is present to me.’ Griesbach and Hahn 
places the comma after good. If it be placed after law, the word that would 
be more properly introduced immediately after it. The law here mentioned 
is the evil tendency of fallen nature before represented as resistless. Under 
its influence the desire to do what is good is overruled and becomes inope- 
rative. This law or ruling tendency is called in ver. 23 the “law in the 
members,” and “the law of sin.” The former phrase seems to have arisen 


118 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. IX. 





I would do good, evil is present TOv vouov TO DéAOVTL enol TroL- 

22 with me. For J delight in the law «iv 70 xadév, drt éuol TO KaKov 
23 of God after the inward man; but mapdxerrat, Luvidopat yap 7@ 22 

I see another law in my members, v6uq TOD Yeod Kata TOV éow av- 
Ypwrov, BAérwW dé Erepov Vopov 23 


from the figurative view of body, flesh, as the instrumentality by which the 
sinfulness of nature develops its character in overt acts. The members are 
the integral parts of which the body, the flesh, is the aggregate. The three 
expressions denote the fallen, sinful character of man. This one three- 
named law stands in contrast to the law of God, which is evidently his 
moral law, or the law of the mind, that is, the same law so far as made 
known to the man’s reason and conscience. 

“] delight in the law of God after the inward man.” In order to have 
a clear comprehension of the Apostle’s representation, it is necessary to 
understand rightly what he means by the inward man. Ordinary readers 
of the Bible very generally suppose this to be identical with the internal 
religious character, “the new man,” the grown or at least the growing 
divine life in the spiritual nature, that which is “ created in righteousness 
and true holiness,” (Eph. iv. 24,) in the soul by the operation of the Holy 
Spirit. Hence, as is quite natural, they cannot conceive it possible that the 
Apostle can be speaking of any but a regenerate person, one in whom 
Christian divine life has already begun. Of such a one alone can this 
inward man be presumed, and this delight in God’s moral law be affirmed. 
But the major proposition in this argument is unwarrantably assumed, and 
of course the conclusion drawn therefrom is unfounded. The inward 
(or inner) man is a phrase which occurs only three times in the New Testa- 
ment. In 2 Cor. iv. 16, it is placed in contrast to “our outward man,” 
that is, evidently, our body. The meaning is undoubtedly this: ‘ though 
our frail body dies and perishes, yet our soul is renewed, its divine life is 
continued and strengthened by the influence of our Christian hopes and 
Agen But the inward man is not identical with this character. In 
Eph. iii. 16, the same phraseology occurs: “strengthened with might in 
the inner man:” that is, in the soul, the spiritual part of the individual. In 
this same sense is the language of the text to be explained: “ according to 
the inward man,” that is, my soul, my spirit is under the influence of its 
reason and conscience. 

Professor Hodge maintains the other view of the phrase. “ The delight 
is restricted to the inward man, and not spoken of the soul generally: As 
the term inward man meant at first the soul in opposition to the body, and 
as the former is superior to the latter, it naturally became expressive of 
excellence, and when opposed to something in the soul, indicates its renewed 
or better feelings.” He then refers to the texts in Ephesians and Corinthians, 


Cn. VII. 22-94.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 119 





év roi¢ péAeot ov dvtioTpatevo- warring against the law of my mind, 

[Evor TH VOUG TOV Vodc ov Kal and bringing me into captivity to 

alypadwrigovTd peT@ vouw tHe the law of sin which is in my 

dwaptiag TO Ovte év TOIG "éAEot members. O wretched man that I 24 
24 wov. Tadainwpocg eyo dvdpo- 


explaining the first by “ their holy affections being confirmed,” and adding 
to the’last as follows: “In all these and similar passages, the phrase includes 
the idea of excellence. When opposed to the body, it is the soul; but when 
opposed to something in the mind, as in this passage to ‘the law in the 
members,’ it means the better feelings or principles.” 

That ¢he soul is the original meaning of the phrase is here admitted. 
That it ever “indicates its renewed feelings” cannot be proved. Its “better” 
element it may indicate. But this may just as well be understood of its 
reason and moral sense as of its regenerated Christian character, which I 
presume is meant by the phrase, “renewed feelings.” In connection with 
the first passage quoted, “inner man” and “holy affections” are represented 
as identical. But this inner man is not the holy affections themselves, but 
rather that spiritual part of man in which the Holy Spirit has planted holy 
affections. In the last, ‘‘ the inward man” is plainly antithetic to “ the outer 
man.” According to the author’s view, the former means “the renewed 
feelings” or “holy affections ;” and consequently the latter must mean the 
carnal sinful nature. But the whole context shows that this cannot be its 
meaning. The Apostle has just been speaking of persecutions, distresses 
and imminent dangers, which threatened him with death. Most undoubt- 
edly it is the body which he represents as perishing ; and therefore it must 
be the soul which he speaks of as constantly renewed. If by the “ outward 
man” the sinful tendency in fallen nature was meant, the Apostle’s language 
would have been that of triumph at the destruction of a deadly and spirit- 
ual foe; whereas his expression is evidently one of resignation: “ We faint 
not, but though our outward man perish, yet the inward is renewed day by 
day.” And the same idea is repeated in the next verse: “ For our light 
affliction,” &c. The Professor quotes also 1 Pet. iii. 4, “the hidden man 
of the heart.” But the phrase and meaning are both different. The lan- 
guage then which is here employed by no means implies or expresses the 
regenerated Christian character. It is true also of the mind in its natural 
state of susceptibility to appreciate in some right degree God’s moral law. 

The spiritual nature of the character here described affirms, “I delight” 
in this law. Literally the word ovvqdowar signifies, ‘I am pleased with,’ and 
it is not necessary to give it any stronger meaning. Thus it need not be re- 
garded as expressing any more than the word before employed in ver. 16, 
“T consent to,” ‘speak in unison with.’ The mouth merely utters what the 
heart dictates. Still it may well be allowed that, becoming more warmed with 


120 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxcr. IX, 





am! who shall deliver me fromthe 70¢* Tig we pioetat ex TOD o6- 
fatog Tov Yavdrov TovTov; 


the subject, and being desirous of stating as fully as possible the complete 
acquiescence of reason and enlightened conscience in the excellency of 
‘God’s moral law, the Apostle prefers a stronger term. It does not express 
the idea of conformity, but it does that of approbation. For it must not be 
forgotten, that the personified character is not the gross, sensual, abandoned 
sinner, recklessly stifling his moral feeling in habitual iniquity. St. Paul 
is not speaking of the careless, profligate offender, but of the man whose 
reason is being acted on and whose conscience is becoming alive to religious 
obligation. 

The result of the contest between the predominating sinful tendency » 
and the perceptions and impotent wishes of the reason and conscience is 
expressed by the phrase “ bringing me into captivity.” The noble part of 
our nature, which would be free, cannot resist its domineering tyrant, and 
lies prostrate as an enslaved and manacled captive. Hence the burst of 
natural feeling, “O wretched man &c.! who shall deliver me?” “Me miser- 
able, which way shall I fly !” 

“The body of this death;” or ‘this body of death, according to the 
marginal reading in the authorised translation. The pronoun may qualify 
either of the nouns. It is connected with the former by Tyndale, Cranmer, 
and the Geneva version. According to this connection, the phrase will be 
Hebraistic ; ‘this body of death, for ‘this deadly body.’ If the other be 
followed, the meaning will be as in our translation. Some commentators 
have supposed that the Apostle alludes to a disgusting and horrible pun- 
ishment, said to have been inflicted during a state of savage barbarism, by 
fastening a dead, corrupting body to the living victim. Virgil speaks of it 
as haying been practised by Mezentius. See Aneid, viii. 485-488. The 
figure would most forcibly illustrate the permanent adherence and deadly 
nature of the sinfulness thus described.—Others maintain that the body, - 
properly speaking, is intended, but “the body subject to corruption,’”* 
Tholuck compares the phrase with that in Col. ii. 11, “the body of the sins 
of the flesh,” and remarks that, in the one place, the body is represented 
as combined with the flesh, and, in the other, with death. Schoettgent and 
others regard the phrase as a periphrasis for death, expressing its substance, 
reality, as the Hebrew writers employ the words 33, Bzy, My See the 
note on ii. 15, p. 836.—But another view seems preferable. The terms body, 
flesh, members, are indeed often used in their literal meaning, as in vi. 12, 
13, and elsewhere. But they are also used figuratively to denote carnal 
or sinful nature, the one expressing its aggregate, and the other its particu- 
lars or the sins which spring from them. See vi. 6, vii. 18, and Col. iii. 5. 


* Olshausen. + Hor. Heb. in loc. p. 524, 


Cn. VIT. 24, 25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ab 





25 edyaptoT® TO Veq@ Sid "Inoov body of this death? I thank God, 25 


It is from the entire carnal and sinful nature, therefore, that deliverance is 
here most earnestly desired. 

25. The first clause of this verse makes a complete close of the topic 
before brought forward. It is the expression of joyous exultation in the 
truth which the words imply, and thus announce even more strongly 
than if they had simply declared it. It is of little consequence whether we 
read, “I thank God,” or, according to very respectable authorities, ‘thanks 
(be) to God.’ In either case the sense is the same. ‘The former agrees 
best with the general construction of the preceding context. The personi- 
fied man of the foregoing representation still makes his presence felt, and 
appears in his assumed individuality: “I thank God!” Some ancieut 
authorities read the Greek so as to make the words a direct answer to the 
question, thus: ‘the grace of God,’ 7 ydpi¢ Tov Seov. But either of the 
other readings harmonizes better with the deep feeling of the context, and 
the last is very much like the gloss of some dull reader, who would substi- 
tute a direct prosaic reply for the answer of a mind deeply embued with 
poetical feeling, and excited by those grateful emotions which express them- 
selves voluntarily and almost unconsciously, in the outbursting of unfettered 
nature rather than in the calm and measured phraseology of cool, logical 
propriety. The common reading is the best, both on the ground of exter- 
nal and internal evidence. 

Here it may be well to stop a moment in order to recal to mind some 
particulars contained in this chapter, either by direct expression or neces- 
sary implication. 

1. It is plain from the Apostle’s remarks, that he describes a class of men 
as living without any right consideration of the real nature and practical 
bearing of God’s moral law: “I was alive without the law once.” The 
truth of this statement need not be proved, however much it may be de- 
plored. And is the Apostle’s description to be limited to unconverted Jews 
or Heathens? The answer may be found in the fact, that numbers of 
Christian people, so called, seem to have no adequate idea of the divine 
claim on their obedience, or of their own habitual failure in complying 
therewith, They live on, carelessly and joyously, and would perhaps be 
both surprised and affronted, if any one should presume to charge them 
with profound ignorance respecting the extent of the demands of the law, 
which claims their obedience, and which condemns the offender. 

2. The next point brought prominently forward is, that moral law dis- 
closes the nature of sin: “J had not known sin, but by the law.” The 
illustration which follows is taken from a single commandment, but the 
principle laid down is in its application universal. All sins are properly 
made known only by the operation of God’s law; and this very fact shows 


122 COMMENTARY ON THE [Snor. 1X. 





through Jesus Christ our Lord. So Xptorod Tov Kkupiov ju@v. "Apa 


its perfection. The law then awakens the conscience to a due sense of that 
natural sinfulness which rules in every man not religious. This being so, 
the law is preparatory to the Gospel. In other words, it is “our school- 
master to bring us unto Christ,” Gal. iii, 24.“ Schoolmaster :” rather 
pedagogue, for the word implies harsh discipline, and is therefore in 1 Cor. 
iv. 15, set in contrast with parental affection. 

3. Thirdly, the Apostle recognises the fact, which indeed is undeniable 
though continually lost sight of by some theoretical and dogmatical com- 
mentators and theologians, namely, that men not religious do nevertheless 
feel and acknowledge the excellence of God’s moral law. We may see this 
truth illustrated and evinced in the case of any class or grade of offenders. 
Who ever conversed with a sinner, however abandoned, who, in his 
thoughtful, serious moments, did not assent to the excellence of true re- 
ligion, and bitterly lament his own want of it? St. Paul portrays his 
pictures from real life, and his characters are the very image of the breath- 
ing originals. Many of his would-be improvers draw largely on an over 
excited imagination, or some stereotyped educational idea unsupported 
by fact. 

4. Fourthly, the Apostle’s train of thought most certainly teaches the 
great truth, that in fallen human nature there is no spiritual good. That 
is, there is no religious and godly internal disposition, fitting the soul for 
the enjoyment of future blessedness. Good, in varied and modified senses, 
no doubt belongs to fallen nature. Parental and filial affection is certainly 
a good; and so also are many other amiable natural properties, which give 
a zest to the enjoyments of human life. But some of these qualities huma- 
nity shares with the brute creation, and while they are good in their place, 
they do not form a part of that good of which the Apostle is speaking. 
The ordinary progressive movements of the physical economy in aceord- 
ance with the laws imposed by the God of nature; the planetary revolu- 
tions; the formations in the vegetable, animal and mineral kingdoms, are 
all good: that is, they are in obedience to the laws of nature imposed by 
their all-wise and omnipotent creator. But the good of which the Apostle 
speaks is that of a moral, intellectual, and responsible being. It is a 
religious good, which fits such a being for assimilating with and enjoying 
God both here and hereafter. A good like this belongs not to fallen man. 
It is not at all connatural. It is wholly superinduced by the influence of 
God’s Spirit; and this influence was procured solely by the merits of Christ 
and flows to weak humanity in no other channel than that which his satis- 
factory atonement has opened. 

5. Further, the remarks of the Apostle suggest a reflection respecting 
the religious condition of the truly pious who lived anterior to the historical 


‘Cn. VII. 25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 123 





ovv adrog éy@ TH wév vot dov- then, with the mind I myself serve 


development of the Gospel dispensation. The condition under the law is 
often mentioned as one of utter spiritual inability, destitution and condem- 
nation, and as such is contrasted with that under grace or the Gospel, as 
one of communicated strength, and rich abundance, and gracious acceptance. 
The texts which speak such language are so numerous as to make any re- 
ference unnecessary. But they all express the nature and results of the 
respective states in themselves considered, not in reference to the historical 
existence of the two dispensations known as the Law and the Gospel. Christ- 
ianity has indeed been historically and fully developed by Jesus Christ 
and his Apostles; but it was originally made known, though imperfectly, 
in the promise that immediately succeeded the fall. Dispensations ante- 
rior to the Gospel, whatever they may have been in themselves, were not 
imposed in order to exclude the influence and operation of that gracious 
system, which was even then partially known. Comp. Heb. iv. 2,3. As 
it follows therefore that the condition of a man living under the legal dis- 
pensation is not necessarily a legal condition; so,,on the other hand, that 
of many Christians so called may not be an evangelical one. When the 
Scripture speaks of the law as without grace and condemning, and the Gos- 
pel as justifying and saving, it describes their respective characters in the 
abstract. But, in former dispensations the sincere and religious believer 
was not under the law in the sense in which St. Paul uses the phrase, but 
under grace, although indeed as a system this had not been completely 
promulged. And in the present glorious evangelical dispensation, he who 
lacks a living faith, though ostensibly connected with it, is nevertheless 
under law and condemned by its righteous sentence. 

6. Lastly, the connection in which this chapter and the first part of the 
next stand with the main scope of the Epistle, tends to sustain in general 
the above exposition. The author shows in detail, what is also elsewhere 
frequently stated or implied in Scripture, the inefficacy of the Law as such 
to meet the exigencies occasioned by man’s fallen condition, Three things 
the Law can do. It can develop the nature of sin; it can become the 
occasion of rousing up natural sinful passions against its holy and divine 
requisitions ; and it can condemn the sinner to merited punishment. But 
in the great work which is absolutely essential to his well being, the work 
of his salvation, it can do nothing. It has no forgiveness to offer, no state 
of justification. and acceptance to promise, no divine aid without which 
sanctification is unattainable to give. All these necessary preliminaries to 
or elements of salvation can only be secured through Christ. This latter 
point, which is implied in the burst of thanksgiving, is distinctly and fully 
brought out in the beginning of the next chapter. Thus the inadequacy of 
the Law and the sufficiency of the Gospel become evident. On the theory 


124 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxer. IX. 





the law of God, but with the flesh Aeiw véum VYeov, TH dé capKi 
the law of sin. voum@ duapriac. 


that the Apostle is describing the conflict of nature with grace in the Chris- 
tian mind, it will be difficult to discover the direct bearing of this descrip- 
tion on his general course of thought and argument. 

The latter half of the 25th verse is by no means clear. It is not easy 
to determine whether aito¢ éy® be best rendered, J myself or I the same 
person. In either case, however, the general sense is most probably the 
same, as the former cannot without harshness be referred to any other than 
the speaker who had been lamenting his weakness and had just expressed 
his thankfulness. The person affirms that “with his mind he serves the 
law of God, but with his flesh the law of sin.” This language does certainly 
bear a strong similarity to that before used in vs. 16-23, and therefore 
many expositors regard it as a repetition of the description there made. 
Thus, to consent to, to delight in or be pleased with, and to serve the law 
of God, are supposed to express the same thought, namely, the harmony 
of reason and conscieyce in the awakened mind with that law. But, inas- 
much as it is difficult to see why the Apostle should revert to the man’s 
former condition after he had made him exult in the Gospel through Christ, 
these expositors have resorted to various expedients in order to remove or 
at least to lessen this difficulty. 

Macknight reads the clause interrogatively, thus making the latter part 
of it equivalent to a negation, and to present his view the more clearly, he 
subjoins to the interrogation the words, “‘ by no means.” But if the Apostle 
intended thus to declare the Christian’s state of liberation, he has done so 
with an obscurity of manner not at all in character with the plainness of his 
ordinary interrogative appeals, which his intelligent readers can hardly mis- 
understand. Comp. ver. 24 and viii. 31-35. Besides, the use of the phrase 
“serve the law of God” to denote nothing more than the full acquiescence 
of the mind as under the influence of reason and conscience, is harsh. ‘To 
serve is to obey, to do the commands of, and will not bear such a very 
modified signification. e 

The last remark is also an objection to Stuart’s interpretation, which 
makes the clause “a summary of the whole preceding representation.” 
He places the former half of the verse which contains the thanksgiving in 
a parenthesis, and says, “to parenthesis it clearly belongs, inasmuch as it 
breaks in altogether upon the thread of discussion, and is simply an antici- 
pation of what is about to follow.” But I apprehend that very few readers 
will approve of such a view as this. The lamentable ery for help is so 
triumphantly overpowered by the thanksgiving for experienced deliverance, 
that the natural feeling would seem to be absorbed in the pseudo-critical, 
before such a supposition can be adopted. 


Cu. VIL 25-VIII.1.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 125 


VIII. Ovddéy dpa viv KatdKpina There is therefore now no con- VIII. 
tole év Xptot@ “Inoov juz} Kata demnation to them which are in 


If the meaning of the expression, “I serve the law of God” would allow 
it, I would propose to place the latter half of this verse in contradistinc- 
tion to the first verse of the next chapter, and to regard the one clause as 
retrospective, introducing again the former description, and the other as 
prospective, stating the true Christian’s condition in consequence of his ac- 
ceptance of the Gospel. But the proper meaning of the verb éo serve is 
stronger than in this case it could bear. Besides, the particle ody, hen, 
seems most naturally to be connected with what immediately precedes. 
I do not feel at liberty, therefore, to adopt this arrangement. 

Apart from any particular examination of the clause in question, it 
would seem most reasonable to suppose that, after the Apostle had brought 
the description of his personified character to the point of expressing grate- 
ful emotions for deliverance, he would immediately proceed to delineate 
the same person’s Christian condition. If therefore what follows is suscep- 
tible of such an exposition, its correctness would seem, to be highly probable. 
Such an interpretation may certainly be given, provided we regard the 
serving of the law of God as emphatic or make that the prominent thought. 
It is certain that, in the former description, no such assertion had been 
made of the awakened but as yet not Christianized mind. The most that 
had been said amounts merely to acquiescence in and satisfaction with 
God’s law. And moreover, the serving of it, that is, the doing its require- 
ments, is the very thing which the man had repeatedly said he neither did 
nor could do. ‘To wish is present with me, but to perform the good—not.’ 
As Olshausen well remarks, in the former state ‘the whole man, the mind 
included, was unable to serve the law of God; but here the mind, (now) 
the ruling principle in the whole man, appears as freed, and in this freedom 
serving the law of God, and only the lower sphere of life remains subjected 
to the law of sin.” The result therefore seems to be this, that the mind in 
its now Christian condition has, by the grace of Christ, become enabled to 
render a holy obedience to God’s law; though in his carnal and sinful na- 
ture the man is still subjected to its tendencies. 

viii. 1. “Therefore,” dpa: the same word occurs in the preceding clause 
with ovv, here we have viv now, which marks more distinctly the man’s 
Christian condition“ In Christ Jesus:” This phrase expresses the true 
Christian’s intimate union with Christ, and is of frequent occurrence. It is 
taken probably from our Lord’s comparison of himself to a vine and his 
disciples to its living branches, and his expressions of their connection with 
him which spring from the same figure. See John xv. 1, 2, 4-7, xvii. 21, 
23, 26. This connection is not simply outward by becoming members 
ostensibly of his church, but inward also by partaking of his nature and 


126 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sror. IX. 


Christ Jesus, who walk not after odpka mepitarovotv. ‘'O yde 2 
2 the flesh, but after the Spirit. For v6uo0¢ tod mvebiuaroc Tie Swijc 

the law of the Spirit of life in év XptorG "Inaov 7jAevdépwoé 

Christ Jesus hath made me free pe dO Tod vépmov Ti¢ duapriacg 


character. Having been baptized into Christ both externally and internally, 
we become thereby members not only of his visible but also of his mystical 
body. On the ground of such union, Christ is said to be in us and we are 
said to be in and of Christ, parts even of his very self. See 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 
Col. i. 27, Phil. iii. 9, 1 Cor. xv, 23, Gal. v. 24, Eph. v. 30. Such cannot 
be in danger of condemnation. The remainder of the verse is probably 
not genuine. It is wanting in many of the best ancient authorities, and 
was perhaps at first a marginal gloss taken from ver. 4. As other weighty 
authorities retain all except the last three words, Hahn has adopted this 
reading. ‘The language describes the course of those who are in Christ Jesus. 

2. The Apostle now resumes the personification which he had so largely 
employed in the preceding chapter, limiting it however to this verse. Per- 
haps he introduces it in order to make the contrast of the declaration with 
that of vii, 23 the more striking. In the one case the tyrannical law spoken 
of conquers and takes captive the man, who, in the other, is liberated by 
the Gospel.—* The law of the Spirit of life :” This may be what the Rheto- 
ricians call an asyndeton, that is, an expression in which the copulative is 
wanting. If so, and must be inserted after Spirit. Or the phrase may be 
equivalent to life-giving Spirit. ‘The whole clause may denote the Gospel 
as aspiritual and life-communicating system, as the word daw is often used. 
See iii. 27, James i. 25, Mic. iv. 2, Isa. ii. 3, xlii. 4. In this sense it is 
taken by Ammon the annotator on Koppe. “The law of sin and death” 
he considers as the same Jaw spoken of in the former chapter as becoming 
the occasion of sin and thus condemning to or producing death. But, 
although this view would keep up an antithesis between the two parts of 
the verse, and would harmonize also with the meaning of law in ver. 3, the 
evident opposition between this place and vii. 23, forbids its adoption. It 
is better therefore to regard the phrase as denoting the religious principle 
of divine life implanted by the Holy Spirit which is efficacious to deliver 
from the state of thraldom produced by the sinful and deadly “Jaw of the 
members” before mentioned. According to this latter view also, the two 
Jaws stand in direct contradistinction to each other, the one as the carnal 
controlling impetus of fallen humanity, and the other as the spiritual ele- 
ment which influences and grows in the regenerated mind. 

3,4. T6 ddévarov is like 76 yyworév in i. 19. It may be the accusative 
absolute, and translated thus: ‘as to what the law could not do.’ Or it may 
be regarded as in apposition with the concluding statements of the verse, 
and also with their result as expressed in the next; and then what the 


Cn. VII. 2, 8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 12% 

i Se ee eee eee 

3 Kal tod Yavdtov. Td yde ddd- from the law of sin and death. For 3 
varov Tov vomov, év @ jodévec what the law could not do, in that 
01a TIC capKoc, 6 Sebc, TOY Eav- it was weak through the flesh, God, 
Tod vidv Témpag ev buotmpate sending his own Son in the likeness 


Gapko¢ djaptiag Kat Tept duap- of sinful flesh, and for sin, con- 


Christian scheme is said to do will be represented in the outset as some- 
thing entirely beyond the capability of the law. Its weakness is ascribed 
to “the flesh.”. This does not mean on account of the imperfection of the 
law as a system chiefly external, “carnal,” as the adjective is used in Heb. 
vii. 16; for the Apostle is not speaking of the Mosaic law as such, but of 
the moral law which had been the topic of the preceding part of the section. 
The cause of its inadequacy lies in human weakness and sinfulness. See 
vii. 12-14, Heb. vii. 18, Gal. iii. 21, 22, Acts xiii, 39.—“Sending his 
own son:” This affirms the sonship of the messenger before he was sent, 
which is also most strikingly represented in John iii. 16.—“ Likeness of 
sinful flesh:” #Vesh here, as often elsewhere, is used for the whole man. 
See John i. 14, and Isa. xl. 5. The Apostle does not say in “sinful flesh,” 
but in its likeness. Thus he guards against the errour of attaching sinfulness 
to Christ’s nature. Comp. Heb. iv. 15. The introduction of sin through 
Adam vitiated but did not destroy the nature in which he had been “ made 
upright,” Eccles. vii. 29, and this original human nature was assumed by 
Christ.—“ And for sin:” This may simply mean ‘on account of sin,’ like 
the dative in vi. 10; or, it may convey the idea of atonement for sin, 
Tpoopopa or Vda or Svota being understood. See Heb. x. 8, where the 
same ellipsis occurs, “ burnt offerings and rept duaptiac,” and in the Sep- 
tuagint, “the priest shall offer 76 wept dwapriac first, and shall sprinkle of 
the blood tov epi tij¢ duaptiac.” Levit. v. 8,9. So also in vi. 30, 
vii. 7, 87, xiv. 19.—* Condemned :” The verb is declarative and equivalent 
to, ‘showed his condemnation of.’ This was done by subjecting Christ to 
suffering on account of human sin whereby it was atoned for. The close 
connection in which this stands with the former phrase favours the meaning 
just given to it.—‘‘In the flesh:” Some explain this of Christ’s flesh, and 
consider the phrase as parallel to that in 1 Pet. ii. 24, “in his own body.” 
Others, with whom I should concur, prefer the meaning in which it is 
generally employed before, namely carnal nature. Thus it will be closely 
connected with sin. 

The author has pointed out one thing effected by Christ which the law 
was incompetent to do, that is, making satisfaction for sin by an atonement. 
He now proceeds to another: “ That the righteousness of the law might be 
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit :” This im- 
plies grace procured by the atonement and imparted to the believer, by 
which he is enabled to live a holy life; all which lies entirely beyond the 


128 


demned sin in the flesh; that the 
righteousness of the law might be 
fulfilled in us, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit. For 
they that are after the flesh do 
mind the things of the flesh; but 
they that are after the Spirit, the 
things of the Spirit. For to be 
carnally minded is death, but to be 
spiritually minded 7s life and peace : 
because the carnal mind ¢s enmity 
against God ; for it is not subject to 
the law of God, neither indeed can 
be. So then they that are in the 


COMMENTARY ON THE 





tiac, KaTéxpive tiv duapriav 
év Ty oapKi, iva 70 Stkaiwpa TOU 
vomov TAnpwI] Ev Huiv, TOG jL7) 
Kara odpka TEpiTaTovaL, GAG 
kata Tvedpa. Ol yap Kata 
odpka bvtec Ta THC CapKd¢ ppo- 
vovow, ol dé Kata TvEvLa TA 
Tov Tvevpatoc. TO yap bpovnwa 
Tic capKkoc Ydvaroc, TO O& ppov- 
nua TOU TvEbpaToG Cu) Kai el- 
pavyn. vote TO hpovypa TiC 
sapkoc &y Spa eic Yedv* 7H yao 
vou TOV Yeov ovy broTdOCETAL, 
ovdé yap divatat. Oi d& ev 


(Sner. IX. 


: 
province of the law. “The righteousness of the law,” is its holy requisi- 
tions. Thus the phrase is used in ii, 26, only the word is in the plural. 
Here the singular is used, but evidently in a complex sense, as it is also in 
y. 18.—“ Fulfilled :” Better, ‘fully done.’ The verb 7Anpéw often takes 
its meaning from the context, and expresses a good measure of the subject 
concerning which it is predicated. Thus in Matt. ‘iii, 15: ‘ fully to comply 
with all religious obligations ;’ Acts xii. 25, ‘fully performed their ministry ;’ 
fom. xiii. 8, ‘fully obeyed the law.’ Of course St. Paul does not speak of 
an absolutely perfect, but an honourable and sincere obedience, showing 
that “the law of the mind” predominates over that “of the flesh.” Thus 
in James ii. 8: “if ye fulfil,” fully do, “the royal law,” where the Greek 
word TeAeite is quite as strong as that here used.—“In us:” He says in 
rather than by, probably to call attention to the all-important fact, that this 
righteousness is produced in the regenerate by the efficient aid of the Spirit ; 
and perhaps also in reference to the language used of sin as an agent in 
vii. 17, 20.—What follows is added to describe the Christian character. 
The meaning is: who do not live according to the promptings of the sinful 
principle in fallen nature, but are swayed by the new and holy principle 
which has been implanted by God’s Spirit. The words “flesh” and “spirit” 
are employed in the same sense in John iii. 6: “that which is born of the 
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” As the spiritual 
element in the regenerate is the production of the Holy Spirit, the same 
word is used both for the agent and his work. Thus the term light denotes 
both Christ himself and also the blessings of his Gospel. See John i. 4, 5, 7-9. 

5-8. “Do mind:” That is, ‘are bent upon.’ Thus the word is used in 
Matt. xvi. 23, and rendered in our translation “savourest.” It expresses 
general character. Comp. Phil. iii. 15, 16, 19, Col. iii. 2. So also the noun 
gpovnua. If understood actively, it will express the minding, the being 


Cu. VIII. 4-11.] 


capkt dvteg Ye@ dpéoat ov dv- 
9 vavra. ‘Ypeic dé ovk eoré év 
capki, dad’ év rvebpatt, eitep 
mvetua Seod olkel Ev vuiv: el 
dé Tic TVETLA Xpiorod ovK EyeEt, 
10 ovroc obk éotiv aitov. Ei dé 
Xpiordg év tiv, TO pév oOma 
vekpov Ou’ duaptiay, TO O€ TvEv- 
11 pa fw) dua Stxavocivnv. Hi 0é 
TO TVETULA TOV EyeipavTog Inoovv 
&x vekpOv oiket év viv, 6 eyel- 
pac TOY Xptorov ék veKp@v Cwo- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


129 


flesh cannot please God. But ye 9 
are not in the flesh, but in the 
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of 
God dwell in you. Now if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his. And if Christ, 10 
be in you, the body zs dead because 
of sin; but the spirit zs life because 
of righteousness. But if the Spirit 11 
of him that raised up Jesus from 
the dead dwell in you, he that 
raised up Christ from the dead shall 


bent upon and governed by; if passively, the principle, the sinful character 
from which such a condition springs. The latter is to be preferred. Com- 
pare the word in ver. 27, where it denotes the mind or will of the Spirit. 
The Greek phrase in the text is thus employed in our 9th Article to denote 
the sinful element of nature as remaining in the regenerate—Death on the 
one hand and life and peace on the other, are the respective results pro- 
duced by the influence of the two principles. In ver. 7, the carnal princi- 
ple is described as inimical to God; and this hostility is immediately 
stated to consist in opposition to hislaw. It neither is nor can be subject 
thereto, because both are contrary in their very nature. Such subjection 
therefore can only exist where a new principle has been introduced within 
the man. Hence the meaning and truth of the remark, that “they who 
are in the flesh cannot please God,” are self-evident. For the meaning 
of “in the flesh,” see on vii. 5, p. 107. 

9-11. As the phrase “in the Spirit” is antithetic to that “in the flesh,” 
its meaning must be, ‘in a holy state, under the influence of the Spirit.’ 
Comp. ix. 1, 1 Cor. xii. 3. And such is necessarily the result of the condi- 
tion annexed, “if the Spirit of God dwell in you.” These words describe 
habitual influence, and imply close association. See Exod. xxix. 45, 2 Cor. 
vi. 16, and especially John xiv. 23, “we will make our abode with him.” 
The Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ, as whose messenger and 
agent he is sent. Comp. John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 14, 15. The general 
meaning is identical with that of the word “ Christ” in the next verse. The 
first two phrases may be equivalent to ‘a Godly or Christlike mind,’ and 
express religious and spiritual character, and the same mind may afterwards 
be personified and spoken of as Christ himself. But it is preferable to con- 
sider the Holy Spirit and Christ both to be personally intended, and their 
intimate union with the believer to be implied. Middleton admits the Holy 
Spirit to be meant in ver. 11, but not in ver. 9, where he maintains the 


other sense of “a Godly and Christian frame of mind,” referring to texts 
9 


130 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. IX. 





also quicken your mortal bodies by roujoee kal Ta SvqTa oGpata 
his Spirit that dwelleth in you. tyav did Td evotkody adrod 
mvevpa Ev viv, 


where the word spirit is used to mark the temper and disposition.* But 
the words, “ dwell in you,” which are added in each case, favour an identity 
of meaning, and | presume that nothing but the absence of the article in 
the former would have led him to explain them differently. 

“The body indeed is dead because of sin:” This is the correct transla- 
tion. Some have endeavoured to support another of the last words, ‘ with 
respect to sin;’ but this is neither sanctioned by usage nor in accordance 
with the context. In this case the body is supposed to mean natural corrup- 
tion, as probably it does in vi. 6, vii. 24, and below ver. 13; and this is said 
to be dead, that is, comparatively, because its power is broken and abated. 
But in opposition to this view it is quite sufficient to say, that the connec- 
tion of the two verses shows “the dead body” of the one to be the same 
as the “ mortal bodies” of the other. Now it would be preposterous to ex- 
plain the latter of the element of natural corruption, both on account of 
the plural number, and because this is never represented as made vigor- 
ous and living through the Gospel, but always, on the contrary, as some- 
thing which must be crucified, put to death, and abolished. The term 
“body” therefore must be taken in its literal meaning. It is said to be 
‘dead :” Perhaps because this is soon to be its condition ; perhaps also 
because its true, ultimate, and future glorified life is not yet operative. 
Thus in vii. 8, sin is called “dead,” meaning comparatively inefficient. 
“Spirit,” being used in contradistinction to “ body,” means soul ; and this 
is said to be “life,” in other words fully alive with. We have the same 
figure in Ps. xly. 8, “all thy garments (are) myrrh, and aloes, and cassia,” 
that is, they are thoroughly impregnated with the scent of such odoriferous 
herbs.—“ On account of righteousness.” Justification cannot be the true 
meaning here, for this would not preserve the antithesis with sin in the 
former clause ; religiousness of character, holiness of the inner man, is the 
Apostle’s idea.—* Him that raised up Jesus from the dead:” This and the 
similar clause that follows are periphrases for God, yet intended to impress 
the thought of Christ’s resurrection by divine power, introductory to the 
thought of the same power being exerted in our resurrection, Comp. on - 
iv. 24.—* By his Spirit that dwelleth in you:” This accords with the com- 
mon Greek reading, which has the preposition d¢é with the genitive. But 
the marginal reading is greatly to be preferred: ‘ because of his Spirit.” 

This is also the translation of Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva and 
Rheims versions, and the meaning of Wiclif’s also, which employs the 


* The Doctrine of the Greek article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament. 
New York, 1813, p. 246. 


Cn. VIII. 12, 18.] 


EPISTLE TO THE 


ROMANS. 131 





12 “Apa obv, ddeAoi, dperdétar 
éouev od TH oapki, TOU KaTa 
18 odpka Civ. Ei yde Kata odpka 
cre, wéddAete drrodvijoKey: el 
d& mvebuate TAG TpdéEtg TOV O0- 


Therefore, brethren, we are 12 
debtors, not to the flesh, to live 
after the flesh. For if ye live after 13 
the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye 
through the Spirit do mortify the 


word “for.” The best external authorities have the accusative, and thus 
sustain. this reading and signification, which are also strongly corrobo- 
rated by the internal evidence. The remark of Professor Stuart, that the 
“agent had been already named, he who raised up Christ,” is not of much 
force, for God might be said to raise us up by means of his Spirit. But 
it is not the Apostle’s intention to refer to the Spirit as the agent in eflect- 
ing the Christian’s glorious resurrection, only as the given pledge of it. The 
accusative reading expresses this sense, on account of. This is confirmed 
by the same use of the preposition in ver. 10, on aceount of sin, on account 
of righteousness, and also by the language in 2 Cor. v. 5, where “the Spirit” 
is said to be “ given unto us” as “the earnest” of our resurrection. Comp. 
John. vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, where the promise of future resurrection is made 
to those who belong to Christ, who believe in him through the Father’s 
drawing, who are incorporated in him by a living union. All these phrases 
imply one and the same thing, as do the indwelling of the Spirit and that of 
Christ before explained. Thus, in the correct language of the commentator 
just named, “the last clause assigns a reason why he who raised up Jesus 
from the dead will quicken his true followers, because he has given them 
his Spirit.”—The whole statement then is to this effect: ‘If Christ be in 
you by a spiritual and vital union, although the body indeed in its present 
condition is spiritually feeble and must soon become literally. dead, yet the 
soul already abounds with a holy happiness on account of that religious 
character which has been wrought in it. And if the Spirit of God habitu- 
ally influences and governs you, God, who raised Jesus Christ from the 
dead, will give life even to those frail, weak and mortal bodies of yours, on 
account of his Spirit whom he hath caused to abide with you and to pene- 
trate into your inmost being.’ 

12-14. The conclusion drawn in ver. 12, which expresses the Christian’s 
obligation not to live according to the promptings of natural sinfulness, is 
followed in the 13th by a statement of the consequences of sinful or holy 
living. These are death and life, that is, misery and happiness. Olshausen, 
regarding this exposition of the terms as “ altogether too feeble,” views them 
as relating to the glorification of the body or the forfeiture of this blessing. 
But while in their full application they certainly comprehend these, no 
reason can be assigned for making this the principal thought. His refer- 
ence to John vi. 50, to show that not dying is equivalent to being raised 
at the last day, is not satisfactory, as that glorious resurrection is not iden- 


132 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. 1X. 





deeds of the body, ye shall live. patog Yavaroure, Sjoeade, “Ooo 14 
14 For as manyas are led by the Spirit yde tveb}pate Veow dyovrat, ob- 

of God, they are the Sons of God. tot elow viol Yeov. Ov ydp 15 
15 For ye have not received the spirit éAdGere rvedpua dovieiag mada 

of bondage again to fear; but ye el¢ MOBov, ddA’ EAdBeTe TrEdua 

have received the Spirit of adoption, 





tical with diving, but introductory to a condition in which the life is to be 
enjoyed.—* Through the Spirit :” Iveéuare may be translated ‘in the spirit,’ 
and explained of the Christian’s spiritual state in opposition to a former car- 
nal one; or, ‘ by the spirit,’ meaning by the influence of the spiritual char- 
acter implanted in him, But it is better to retain the usual exposition, the 
Holy Spirit, as he is the agent by whom alone we are enabled to live con- 
formably to our obligations, and as in the next verse he is spoken of as the 
leader of God’s children.—* The deeds of the body :” Body is undoubtedly 
the true reading, although several important authorities have flesh, t7¢ 
capkoc¢. This shows, however, in what sense their authors understood the 
word body. For its meaning in such a connection, see vi. 6, and vii. 24, 
with the notes. In Col. ii. 11, it occurs in the same sense.—‘ The deeds :” 
This word preserves the figure. ‘The aggregate of sin being represented 
as a body and also personified, individual sins, which are sometimes 
depicted as its members, (see Col. iii. 5,) may naturally be considered as 
its acts; and here these are substituted by a metonymy for the feelings 
and passions whence they spring. In Col. iii. 9, the same word occurs in 
the sense of sinful actions and motions: “ye have put off the old man 
with his deeds.” The whole phrase, therefore, is equivalent to such an 
opposition to sinful passions as tends to their final destruction. 

15-17. “Again” should be connected with “ fear,” not with “ received.” 
—“Spirit of bondage—spirit of adoption :” These phrases may be pleo- 
nastic, and express simply what is denoted by the latter words. But, as 
their use seems to have been suggested by the term Spirit before employed, 
the meaning is probably as follows: ‘the Spirit whom you have received 
is not one which brings you again into a condition of fearful apprehension, 
but which effects your adoption into God’s family.’ Thus in 1 Cor. ii. 12, 
the spirit whom the Apostle claims to have received is said to be “not of the 
world but of God.” In Isa. xi. 2, we read of “the spirit of wisdom and 
understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and 
of the fear of the Lord,” meaning the efficient power which enables its 
possessor to exercise what is expressed by the words, which power is 
imparted by this Spirit Bondage” is not to be limited to subjection to 
the law ; it comprehends also the slavery of sin.—The “ adoption” is that 
state of sonship which is the Christian’s privilege here preparatory to complete 
adoption attendant on the resurrection: See ver. 23.—The thought in the lat- 


Cx. VIII. 14-17.] EPISTLE TO 
viodeciac, &v @ Kpdfomev’ aBBa, 

16 6 marie. AvTO TO TrEdwa OVL- 
wapTupel TO Trevpate Hua@y, Ore 

17 éopév téxva Yeov. Hi dé réxva, 
Kat KAnpovémot* KAnpovdmor ev 


THE ROMANS. 


138 


whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
The Spirit itself beareth witness 16 
with our spirit, that we are the 
children of God: and if children, 17 
then heirs; heirs of God, and joint 


Yeov, ovykAnpovouot 6& Xptorov: heirs with Christ ; if so be that we 


ter part of the verse is simply this: ‘by the influence of whom we recog- 
nise God as our affectionate father.’ The relation is expressed not only in 
Greek, but in the Chaldee form also; perhaps because this approximates 
more nearly to infantile enunciation, and thus is intimated that child-like feel- 
ing of love and docility which accompanies the recognition. The same use 
of both languages occurs also in the parallel place, Gal. iv. 6, andin our Lord’s 
prayer in the garden, Mark xiv. 36. Here the language of recognition is 
put in the mouth of the Christian: “we cry.” In Galatians the same act 
is attributed to the divine agent: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” 
the principle, qui facit per alium facit per se, as it is only through the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit that the child of God is brought to recognise with 
joyous trust his heavenly father. The emotion is, in the one place, ascribed 
to the Spirit, and in the other, to Christians themselves. And thus, in 
ver. 26, the ‘inward intercessions of the Christian are attributed to the 
Spirit, inasmuch as they are produced by his operation.’ 
occurs also in relation to cases of demoniacal agency, the language said to 
be uttered being ascribed indifferently to the demon and to the possessed. 
Compare the narratives of the cure of the two demoniacs of Gadara in Matt. 
viii. 28 et seq., Mark v. 1 et seq., and Luke viii. 26 et seq. 

The attestation of the Spirit here spoken of is made to the mind of the 
believer, and is therefore internal, as it is said in 1 John v. 10, he “ hath 
the witness in himself.” It consists chiefly in the Christian character, but 
as this is the work of the Spirit, it is he who testifies. This is proved more 
clearly by the parallel place in Galatians before quoted, where God is said 
to have sent forth the Spirit into the heart, implying the mission of a per- 
The witness consists in satisfying the individual of his filial 


This is readily explained on 


The same usage 


sonal agent. 
relation to God, inasmuch as he has become conscious of holy affections, and 
sincere endeavours to “live righteously, soberly, and godly.” This reli- 
gious condition of the soul is accompanied by spiritual comfort in trouble, 
and by habitual, though it may not be invariable, hope and trust in future 
blessedness. A feeling of acceptance, amounting even to assurance, is hap- 
pily not the test of filiation laid down in Scripture; for such a test must 
ever be uncertain, and often dependent on physical condition and natural 
temperament.—It is better to give the preposition its proper force, as is 
done in our authorised version, and also in the Genevan, which has “ together 


134 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. IX. X. 





suffer with him, that we may be el7ep ovurdayouev, iva kal ovv- 
also glorified together. dotacdaper. 


with.” Wiclif and the Rheims translate “to ;” and this is the sense of 
Tyndale, and Cranmer, “ certifieth oure sprete.” The Apostle’s meaning 
is, that the thoughts and reflections and reasonings, in a word, the operations 
of the mind on itself, act on and thus join along with its regenerated and 
renewed character in attesting a state of sonship. It is true that this view 
does not necessarily follow from the use of the preposition in composition ; 
still, it agrees best with St. Paul’s manner, and with the three compound 
words in the next verse. Heirship along with Christ results from filiation, 
as glorification does from the true Christian’s “fellowship” with his master’s 
“ sufferings.” See Phil. iii. 10. 


SECTION X. 


Cuap. VIII. 18-89. 


THE TRIALS OF LIFE AND THE BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL BOTH HERE AND 
HEREAFTER COMPARED. GOD’S PURPOSE TO CONFER ALL THESE BLESSINGS 
ON HIS REDEEMED. CONSEQUENT EXULTATION AND TRIUMPH. 


18 For I reckon that the sufferings Aoyifoua yao, drt ovn adéva 18 


Verses 18,19. In addition to the well known English commentators, the 
reader is referred on these and some of the following verses to a disserta- 
tion by Doederlein, in the Commentationes Theologice, vol. I. pp. 483 et 
seq., and another by Danhauwer, in the Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus, 
appended to the Critici Sacri, Amstel. 1702, pp. 503 et seq. Also, to 
Stuart’s 8th Excursus in his Commentary, or his article on the passage in 
the Biblical Repository for April 1831, vol. I. pp. 363-406. The Com. 
mentaries of Tholuck and O]shausen contain farther references to German 
writers, and also important original remarks. 

“For:” This shows the connection with what immediately precedes, 
Having mentioned suffering and glorification along with Christ, the Apostle 
here presents the Christian with the strongest motive to bear such suffering 
with resignation and cheerfulness, in consequence of the infinitely superior 
blessings which the glory that is to follow comprehends.—“I reckon :” 1 
consider. ‘The word implies the result of a careful comparison of present 
evils with future blessings.—* Worthy to be compared :” déca’ that is, equi- 
valent to, sufficient to counterbalance.—“ The glory about to be revealed” 


Cu. VIII. 18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 135 





Ta TadjpaTa TOV vvY Kalpov of this present time are not worthy 


is evidently what in the next verse is implied in the “manifestation,” or, as 
it ought to have been rendered, the revelation “of the sons of God.” The 
noun dtoxdAvyey plainly refers back to the verb droxaAv@97jvat, a refer- 
ence which is lost sight of in our English translation in consequence of not 
employing the same word in both places. This is done by Wiclif and the 
Rheims version, the former using shew and the latter reveal.—-The term 
“glory” is sometimes used in reference to the present blessings of Christ’s 
kingdom. Thus in 2 Cor. iii. 7-11, the Gospel and its ministry are said to 
be “glorious,” and the Hebrew word for glorify or honour occurs in Isa. 
ix. 1, (Heb. viii. 23,) where, instead of our English translation, “ did more 
grievously afflict,” the true meaning is glorified or honoured. See on the 
text Dr. and Bishop Lowth, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Alexander, and others. 
It is used also of its future blessings. Thus in 2 Cor. iv. 17, “ weight of 
glory,” and in Col. iii. 4, “appear with him in glory.” But, employed in a 
more general sense, it comprehends both these meanings, denoting the pre- 
sent and the future blessings of Christ’s kingdom. Indeed, like the phrase 
“kingdom of heaven,” these two meanings are merely subdivisions of the 
primitive more general signification. In 1 Cor. ii. 10, it undoubtedly refers 
to these blessings as revealed to the Apostles ; and yet the previous verses 
and the original passage in Isaiah Ixiv. 4, show that the word comprehends 
vastly more than had been or indeed could now be revealed, even the ful- 
ness of heavenly blessings. In the passage under consideration there is no 
reason for limiting the meaning. ' Both the present and future blessings of 
Christ’s kingdom are here to be taken in connection, as constituting one 
whole. The future part, however, is to be regarded as incomparably the 
greatest, both in the nature and degree of its enjoyments, and also on 
account of their being eternal. It is on the ground of this union of the pre- 
sent and the future, that the called, the justified, in ver. 30, are also the 
glorified. Their glorification hath already begun. In harmony with this 
view, “the believer on the Son” is said to “have” already “everlasting 
life :” John iii. 36. With the spirit and general tenor of the verse, compare 
1 Pet. iv. 13.—It is uncertain whether eic is better rendered in or éo us. 
Either is allowable, and either makes a good sense. The revelation of the 
glory is partly to the soul and therefore in us; and partly also to be under- 
stood and appreciated by others, and thus in a degree fo us. The former 
view, however, coincides best with the Apostle’s general tone of feeling and 
description, and with the character of the glorified condition, which is chiefly 
internal. 

The revelation of the sons of God is not the manifesting of them to the 
universe, As the phrase must be explained by the previous verse, it can 
mean nothing else than the glorious condition which is to he made known 


186 ; COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxer. X. 


to be compared with the glory 7pd¢ Tijv uéAAovoav ddgav dro- 


to them by their own blessed experience; and this is what the creatare is 
said to expect with extraordinary earnestness, *Amoxapadoxkia is an em- 
phatic word, and etymologically expresses the idea of expecting with 
head erect or bent forward. In forming a view of the Apostle’s train of 
thought, it is important to ascertain, if possible, the application of the word 
translated “creature,” 7 «tio, which may signify either the act of creating 
or the thing created. 

A vast variety of meanings has been devised by extravagant criticism 
and mental ingenuity. These I shall omit, and mention three only, each 
of which has been defended by men of good sense and sound philological 
learning. 

1. Several commentators of distinction consider the word as expressing a 
moral creation, and understand by it Christians converted either from Juda- 
ism or Heathenism or both. The term “ creature,” «Tiowc, and “ workman- 
ship,” zroijua, which is analogous to it, are certainly used to denote true 
Christians. The latter occurs with this application in Eph. ii. 10, and the 
former in texts which will be quoted immediately. This usage arises out 
of the fact, that the Christian is another being than he was before his con- 
version, and has become so by the creative power of God operating within 
him. Thus St. Paul says with striking beauty and force, “God, who com- 
- manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give 
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ :” 
2 Cor. iv. 6. The word therefore fitly expresses the Christian condition, 
But, whenever it is thus used in the New Testament, it is accompanied by 
certain adjuncts which determine this to be its meaning. Thus, in Eph. iv. 
24, the Christian character is said to be “created in righteousness and true 
holiness.” In 2 Cor, y. 17, the convert is called “a new creature,” and the 
same phrase occurs in Gal. vi. 15, to express the state of the Christian. 
Besides, in vs. 22, 23, those who had “received the first fruits of the 
Spirit” are contrasted with “ the whole creation, the creature” of ver. 19. 
But it is wholly unreasonable to suppose that the former can be limited to 
Jewish converts, as it would be, if the contrasted phrase stood for Heathen 
converts; or that it can be intended of the Apostles themselves, as is sup- 
posed by those who explain that phrase of conyerts in general. No such 
limitation is admissible, for what is said is true of all sincere Christians. 
The conclusion is evident, that ‘ creature” cannot be intended to denote 
Christians either in whole or in part. 

2. Another class of expositors understand the word “creature” here and 
in ver, 22, in its general meaning of ‘all creation.’ Thus the Apostle ex- 
presses his idea of future glorification by means of a beautiful and even 
magnificent personification of all created nature longing after such a con- 


Cn. VIII. 19.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 137 


19 kadvodjvat el¢ tac. ‘H yde which shall be revealed in us. 


summation. In defining this view more accurately, some take into consid- 
eration this world in its present condition, understanding the irrational in 
opposition to the rational creation; while others grasp in imagination the 
universe, without, however, expressing themselves fully or clearly as to all 
the particulars comprehended therein. Tholuck adopts the former modifi- 
cation. Olshausen maintains the latter view. He says: “The Apostle 
extends his look over the whole creation ;—he spans with one mighty glance 
the whole creation in all its parts.—By the creature, not merely our earth 
or our solar system, but the totality of all creation, heaven and earth, the 
material and spiritual world, must be understood.” And yet the phe- 
nomena by which he attempts to illustrate his view are all taken from ter- 
restrial nature, the birth of animals, the bursting and growth of plants, and 
what he represents as their struggles towards an unattainable perfection. 
I may remark, by the way, that among these intended illustrations there is 
not one in which the supposed struggle of nature results in any superiority 
over the parent plant or animal. They are therefore rather efforts after 
preservation and continuance than improvement and ultimate perfection, 
and consequently do not bear on the point to be illustrated. Indeed I am 
constrained to say, that imagination and poetic feeling seem here to have 
had more influence on this devout and thoughtful commentator, than calm 
reasoning or well settled facts. Doubtless the introduction of sin into 
the world by man, did produce a change in the inferior parts of earthly 
creation, substituting thorns and thistles for fragrant flowers and fruitful 
plants, disturbing the harmony even in material, and most probably much 
more in irrational nature. And therefore a state of blessedness which 
shall entirely counteract the effects of the fall, may well be described 
as embracing a change even in irrational nature. This would be equiva- 
lent to declaring that the original perfection, which characterised God’s 
work, when he surveyed the immense whole and pronounced it all to be 
“very good,” shall be restored. In other words, all the evil of sin shall be 
abundantly repaired. A poetic mind may well be conceived to pour out 
this thought in language which represents all nature as wailing at its pre- 
sent degradation, and anxiously and with bitter throes labouring in the 
hope of a glorious birth and youthful immortality. And thus in the sub- 
lime language of the prophets, the mountains and the forests burst forth in 
exulting strains, and the hoary deep lifts up his voice on high, and surges 
out the praises of God.* This may be the Apostle’s general thought, as it 
is also the prophets’, when they describe the peaceful, loving character of 
Messiah’s reign.+ But the nature of the figure and of the truth to be illus- 


* See Isa. xliv. 23, lv. 12. Ps. xevi. 11, 12, and other similar places. 
+ Ps. xxii. 3, 6, 16, Isa. xi. 6-9, lv. 12, 13. Ix. Ixy. 17-25. 


188 COMMENTARY ON THE [Szor. X. 


19 For the earnest expectation of the droxapadoKia tig KTioewe tiv 


trated forbids us to make all the details of the imagery real. We must 
not infer a radical change of material nature; we must not expect the 
noxious beast or reptile to be transformed into the bland and gentle com- 
panion, or the discords of the present sublunary creation to become attuned 
to the harmony of divine love. By attempting to carry the figure to ex- 
tremes we counteract its rightful illustrative element. This has been done 
by the Rabbies, whose exhibitions of the renovation which is to mark the 
Messiah’s kingdom, are characterised by puerility and extravagance. They 
may be found in some of the writers above referred to, I will only add 
that, allowing the very early Jews to have cherished the expectation that 
the earth was to be restored to its paradisaical state, this will not prove 
that St. Paul or any other sacred writer intended to convey the same im- 
pression by the use of general language like that of the text. The most 
that can properly be inferred from it is this, that in the end Christ shall 
completely counteract the ruinous effects of sin which has degraded God’s 
originally beautiful and harmonious creation, and establish universal right- 
eousness, holiness, and happiness in all the wide domains of his glorified 
kingdom. Whether this kingdom shall embrace within its borders regen- 
erated material and irrational nature, is a useless speculation, about which 
men may indulge their imaginations at the expense of sober and religious 
thought, and which has been and may again become the fruitful source of 
unbounded and mischievous corporeal indulgence. See, for one illustration, 
the extravagant traditional statements of Papias in Irenzeus ad Heer. Lib. v. 
Cap. 33, pp. 454, 455, Edit. Grabe, Ox. 1702. 

3. Another view of the word xriowc, creature, is defended by some of 
the most judicious commentators, and conveys most probably the Apostle’s 
leading thought. It may be used for mankind generally, the popular use of 
language allowing that to be affirmed of all, which is applicable to a large 
proportion. Thus in John x. 8, “al that ever came before me are thieves 
and robbers,” is probably to be understood with considerable limitation. 
This is undoubtedly the case in John xii. 19, “the world has gone after 
him,” and in John iii. 26, “add come to him.” Multitudes of other instances 
might easily be added. That the word translated creature is used to ex 
press mankind seems certain from Mark xvi. 15 and Col. i. 23, “preach the 
Gospel to every creature—the Gospel, which was preached to every creature 
which is under heaven.” Olshausen’s attempt to give these texts another 
meaning is a failure. He denies that the word is ever used in the New 
Testament to “signify men only. In the former” of the texts just cited, 
« creature is mankind only so far as it is regarded as the flower of the crea- 
tion in general, as appears from the use of every along with it ;” (the reason 
given is an unfounded assertion :) “in the latter, creature is taken locally 


Cu. VIII. 19.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 139 





, 7 ~ t~ ~ ~ . J . 
aToKdAvyuy TOV Viv TOD Yeov creature waiteth for the manifesta- 


of the extent of earth, equal to world.” The exposition is arbitrary and 
forced. How could he speak of man as “the flower of a creation” which 
he had before represented as “ totality,” comprehending “ the spiritual and 
material world?” and where will he find any place in the Old or New Tes- 
tament where the word refers to “local extent of earth?” These exposi- 
tions aflord a striking illustration of the influence of theory on the mind of 
an able interpreter. In addition to the proof contained in the texts above 
quoted that mankind in general is a legitimate meaning of the original 
term, I may add that the Rabbies sometimes apply the Hebrew word for 
creation or creature in the same limited way to mankind, particularly the 
Heathen. See the writers before referred to, and also Lightfoot on Mark 
xvi. 15, who gives several apposite quotations from the Talmud and other 
Jewish authorities, and applies their meaning to this passage in Romans, 
According to this view of the words, while the Apostle’s language may 
comprehend a figurative and poetic personification of all terrestrial creation 
as longing for deliverance from present imperfection and degradation, yet 
this earnest expectation will be predicated chiefly of mankind in general, 
anxiously desiring an amelioration of their condition, which was expected 
in various degrees of excellence and with different degrees of hope and 
trust, according to circumstances. 

To this view several objections have been urged. First, it is said “that 
all men cannot be meant, since the regenerate as such, ver. 19, are ex- 
pressly excepted.” This objection is urged by Olshausen, who nevertheless 
takes the phrase in its most unlimited meaning, which of course compre- 
hends all men. But I have already shown that such language often ex- 
presses what is common, though very far from being universal. The 
regenerate, although a part of mankind in its totality, is no part of that 
whole creation with which they are contrasted; just as in 1 John vy. 19, 
- “we,” meaning true Christians, are set in opposition to “the whole world 
lying in wickedness;” and in Num. xvi. 29, the rebel faction of Korah, 
Dathan and Abiram are contrasted with “all men.” Secondly it is ques- 
tioned whether St. Paul would have represented such a feeling and wish 
on the part of Heathen men as a “longing after Christian glorification, con- 
sidering how much the feeling was destitute of a moral basis.” Such a 
“thought would have been expressed quite differently from the tone of this 
passage.” No doubt the moral ground of the expressed desire was, in 
multitudes whu felt something of it, very weak. I see no good reason, 
however, for assuming that the Apostle’s statement requires any other 
supposition. Admitting this moral weakness, the desire for a better con- 
dition may nevertheless have been exceedingly strong. The thought is 
expressed in language prompted by the Apostle’s own views and feelings, 


140 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. X. 








20 tion of the sons of God. For the drexdéyerat. TH yde paraté- 20 
creature was made subjectto vanity, TTt 1) KTlow breTdyn, ody Exov- 
not willingly, but by reason of him oa, dAAd did tov brordéavra, 
who hath subjected the same in 





and therefore, in its application to the Heathen, it must not be rigorously 
pressed. Compare the language occasionally in Chap. vii. What “ Christian 
glorification” properly is, doubtless they did not know. But the objec- 
tion proves too much. For even the true Christian’s knowledge on this 
point is also very imperfect. ‘It doth not yet appear what we shall be,” 
says the most honoured and spiritual of the Lord’s “ friends,” (1 John iii. 2 4) 
and so all but infinitely transcendent may be the future state of glorifica- 
tion, that between the Heathen’s infrequent, uncertain and momentary 
glimpse, and the Christian’s present knowledge, true and well founded in 
the degree to which it extends, the difference compared with the magnitude 
of the future “revelation,” may be very inconsiderable. And if the objec- 
tion applies to the meaning now under review, much more does it to that 
maintained by the objectors, which represents inanimate creation as long- 
ing for this “Christian glorification.” To attempt to remove this difficulty 
by calling the Apostle’s language a bold personification, is trifli g; for by 
such a figure material nature cannot possibly be represented ‘as longing 
for what is properly Christian glorification. On any view of the place, 
“the revelation of the sons of God” must be understood in a limited ap- 
plication. 

It is well known that the more thoughtful and serious portion of man- 
kind, both before and since the coming of Christ, have often been under the 
influence of feelings such as those here stated by the Apostle. The reader 
may find illustrations of this in the writers before referred to and also in 
other interpreters, 

20, 21. “Vanity :” That is, a frail, unhappy, miserable condition. It is 
applied either to man or to his present circumstances, in Ps. xxxix.5, Heb., 
xxxviii. 6, Sept., and Eccles. i. 2, 14.—Here it denotes the transient afflic- 
tive, perishing condition introduced through the fall—*Not willingly .” 
This shows that the word “creature” relates principally to man, as it was 
quite unnecessary gravely to assert that unconscious and inanimate 
creation did not willingly acquiesce in this state of things. Dr. Hodge in- 
deed affirms that “this is not true of mankind. It cannot be said, in its full 
and proper force, that they were brought into their present state not by 
their own act or ‘willingly,’ but by the act and power of God.” In reply I 
remark, that the first of ghese two statements is true, and can therefore be 
said in its fullest sense; and that the second is not made by the Apostle. 
The Professor seems to confound the voluntary breach of God’s Jaw with 
the penal consequences that ensued ; and therefore he represents the other 


Cu. VIII. 20, 21.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 141 


21 én’ éAmide: bre nat ade? 7 KTiotg hope: because the creaturo itself 21 
EAevdepwdijoerat add Tij¢ dov- also shall be delivered from the 
Asiag tio P¥opac cic THY éAev- Dondage of corruption into the 


view as an “exculpatory declaration not in keeping with the scriptural 
mode of speaking.” But this other view does not regard St. Paul as referring 
to man’s transgression. That was “ willingly” committed. But the subjec- 
tion to vanity that followed, the expulsion from Paradise and all its train 
of evils, came upon man unwillingly. He was compelled to submit to 
them. That the second of the above statements is not made by the Apos- 
tle will appear from what follows. “By reason, (or, on account) of him 
who hath subjected :” Some translate; ‘by him,’ and this the commenta- 
tor just quoted prefers. The other meaning he allows to be “ best suited 
to the usual force of the preposition with the accusative.” Undoubtedly it 
is, as in such construction it scarcely ever occurs in any other meaning. By, 
he thinks “is to be preferred,” because it ‘gives the better sense.” As this 
is simply a matter of opinion or taste, the superior excellence of the meaning 
affirmed should always, unless self-evident, be clearly proved. Olshausen 
regards this sense as worse than feeble. “The observation that God is the 
originator of this subjection and not man, is something too idle to have any 
place in this grand development.” Both these learned commentators agree 
in their general exposition of the term creature; but in this point they 
differ toto ecelo. To me the translation “on account of,” seems to make 
the better sense; and therefore, and principally because supported by al- 
most invariable usage, I prefer it to the other. This accords with the 
older English versions. Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rheims, have 
“for ;” the Geneva and King James’, give the same meaning in the transla- 
tion “by reason of,’ They all agree with, and perhaps followed, the 
Vulgate, propter. The agent who is said to have subjected is the devil, 
according to Locke, who refers to Gen. iii., Col. ii. 15, and Heb. ii. 14, 15, 
Others, among whom is James Capel, think Adam to have been meant, 
and suppose an allusion to the fall and to v. 12 et seq. But the larger 
proportion of respectable authorities apply the term to God; and this is 
probably the most natural exposition, and accords best with the context, 
and also with St. Paul’s habit of referring every thing to God. The sub- 
jection took place by God, of course, inasmuch, as he induced the state of 
things implying it, and placed the sinning fallen creature therein; a state 
too which the culprit would gladly have avoided, had this been within his 
power. The subjection was compulsory, but on account of the divine being 
who effected it, zn order to promote his purpose by subjecting man to trial 
and suffering, thereby leading him to repentance, submission and faith. 
The sinful creature must be a suffering creature, and this on account of the 
honour of God, who by a suitable discipline elicits good from evil. 


142 COMMENTARY ON THE - (Seer. X. 


glorious liberty of the children of Yepiav tice d6En¢ TOY TéKVWY 
22 God. For weknow thatthe whole Tod Veov. Oldapev ydo, dre 22 

creation groaneth and travaileth in doa # Kriow ovorevdser Kai 
23 pain together until now. And not ovvwdiver dype Tov viv. Ov 23 

only they, but ourselves also, which pévov dé, dAAd Kai adroi Tijv 


“In hope:” Many interpreters and critics of high reputation connect 
this phrase with the preceding verb imetdyn, made subject, placing the 
intermediate clause in a parenthesis and closely uniting the verse with the 
next. “Orv will then have the sense of that. The meaning thus elicited is 
undoubtedly good. The unhappy condition of the creature will be repre- 
sented as, nevertheless, one of exalted hope of future deliverance and glory. 
We ought, however, whether this view be adopted or not, to reject the pa- 
renthesis ; for the statements which it contains are too important and too in- 
timately allied to the Jeading train of thought, to be regarded as omissible 
or even secondary in value. But it is better to complete the period with 
this verse and to begin a new one with the next, rendering 6ru because, as 
in our translation and in those of Rheims and Geneva, or for, as in Wiclif, 
Tyndale, and Cranmer. The Vulgate adopts the same construction, and 
translates guia. Thus there will be a positive statement of future deliver- 
ance and fruition of glory, while in the other case, the creature in its state 
of subjection, will merely be represented as cherishing a rightful hope. 
The former sense is the fuller of the two. Both agree well with vs. 24, 
25.—*The bondage of corruption,” is the wretched state of slavery to sin, 
and subjection to misery, which is its unfailing attendant. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 
12, 19, and Jude 10, Gal. vi. 8, Eph. iv. 22. | Ele expresses the condition 
of glorious freedom from sin and suffering in which the children of God shall 
be placed. 

22, 23. The verbs here employed fitly represent the painful distress 
attendant on the efforts to be made in order to rise from present degrada- 
tion to ultimate bliss. Inasmuch as this bliss is the state of filiation into 
which we are partially born again here by the Spirit, (John iii. 6,) and 
completely in the great “regeneration when the Son of man shall sit upon 
the throne of his glory,” (Matt. xix. 28,) and “he that raised up Christ shall 
also quicken our mortal bodies on account of his indwelling spirit,” (Rom. 
viii. 11;) the figure chosen whereby to express those efforts is taken from 
parturition, the anguish of which is sustained in the hope that a child of 
God is being born into the kingdom of heaven: Comp. John xvi. 21. The 
prepositions in composition express the general condition of the whole 
mass. The inward earnest longings of true Christians after the fulness of 
redemption in the glorified condition of perfect sonship, are now placed in 
contradistinction to the painful efforts of mankind in general before the 
period of the Gospel revelation, 


Cu. VIII. 22-24.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 143 





drapyy Tod rrebuatog éyovTec, have the first-fruits of the Spirit, 
kat iypetc adtol év éavtoi¢ oTev- even we ourselves groan within our- 
dgouev viodeciay drexdeyoue- selves, waiting for the adoption, to 
vol, Tv aroAvTpwoLv TOU OW- wit, the redemption of our body. 

24 pratog Hua. TH yap éAridt For weare saved by hope: but hope 24 


“And not only:” Here we must supply from the former verse the 
words “the whole creation.” A similar ellipsis occurs in ix. 10: “and not 
only” was this so in the caste of Sarah, “but” &e. “The first-fruits” were 
portions of the harvest which were cut the earliest, and were offered to 
God. See Levit. xxiii. 10, and Deut. xxvi. 2. Hence the word is used by 
afigure to denote the early converts of a place. Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 15. 
It is applied also to Christ as being “the first born from the dead,” after 
whom they that belong to him are to be raised. Col. i. 18, 1 Cor. xv. 28. 
Here it means the gracious influences of the Spirit given to the early con- 
verts as an earnest and pledge of his most abundant communications to be 
afterwards dispensed.—“ Even we ourselves:” A comparison of ancient 
authorities shows a vast variety of readings here. But this is of very little 
consequence, as the alteration produced thereby in the meaning is quite in- 
considerable. They may be seen in Griesbach, or any good critical edi- 
tion.— The adoption :” In some degree Christians have already received 
this benefit. Comp. vs. 15, 16, and 1 John iii. 2. But here the word is 
employed in its fullest signification, comprehending those blessings which 
are connected with the resurrection of the body, here called its “ redemp- 
tion.” This word, which is sometimes equivalent to “ forgiveness of sins,” 
(Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14,) is here used in its most extensive meaning. So alsois 
it in 1 Cor. i. 30, ‘wisdom and justification and sanctification and redemp- 
tion ;” also in Eph. i. 14, “ until the redemption of the purchased possession ;” 
and in iv. 30, “ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” It expresses 
therefore the final resurrection, when the bodies of them that sleep in Christ 
shall be raised, changed and made spiritual, and consequently forever de- 
livered from corruption and all the effects of sin. See 1 Cor. xv. 42-44, 
and Phil. iii. 21. All this is in perfect harmony with the language of our 
Lord to the Sadducees respecting the future condition of the just: “They 
are the sons of God being the sons of the resurrection :” Luke xx. 36. The 
latter condition is inseparably associated with the former. The same word 
“adoption” or filiation or sonship, expresses the incipient, present, and 
imperfect relation to God, and also the same relation in its most exalted 
significaney. 

24, 25. “ For” is illative of what has just been said. The imperfection 
of our present condition requires the exercise of hope of a better one. 
“ By hope:” If this be the correct translation, then hope is to be regarded 
as one among other Christian properties tending to secure our salvation, in- 


/ 


144 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Sor. X. 





that is seen, is not hope: for what 
a man secth, why doth he yet hope 
25 for? But if we hope for that we 
see not, then do we with patience 
26 wait for it. Likewise the Spirit 
also helpeth our infirmities: for we 
know not what we should pray for 


bowdnuev* éAric d& BAeTomévy 
ovx tori éAric: 6 yde BAéret 
tic, TL Kal éAmriger; El dé 6 od 25 
BAéromev, eArigouev, dt’ vdT0- 
povie drexdeyoueda. ‘Qoabrw¢ 26 
d& Kai TO TVEdUA OVVAaYTLAGL- 
Bdverar TY dodeveia tuav: TO 


asmuch as we are led thereby to adhere and persevere. But probably the 
dative éA7idt, expresses our condition, The meaning will then be, we are 
in a state of salvation, in which hope is to be continually exercised. Men 
are said to be saved, when they have accepted the Gospel; and hence it is 
that believers are called the saved and unbelievers the lost. See Acts ii. 47, 
2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 8.—“Seen:” This means in present possession as some- 
thing external, and is equivalent to enjoyed, It is as if the author had said, 
‘hope enjoyed is not properly hope.’ Té is rendered in our translation 
“ why ;” how is perhaps preferable. Hope produces patient and persevering 
expectation.—The word as first employed in these verses comprises the 
privciple, afterwards it denotes the object on which the principle acts, 
Faith also is sometimes used in the same way. 

26, 27. “ Likewise :” That is, according to some, in our Christian con- 
dition, in which we cherish a hope, the Spirit helpeth, &c. It is sim- 
pler, however, to regard the word as expressing a comparison, thus: as 
hope sustains, so also does the Spirit assist us during our earthly sojourn. 
—There is no reason to give any other meaning to the word Spirit in these 
verses than that in which it has been used before in vs, 4—6, 9, 11, 13-16, 
23.—“ Helpeth,” ovvavtiAauBdverar' St. Paul scarcely ever employs 
this preposition in composition without conveying some additional meaning 
to that of the simple verb. Indeed in about 120 instances, I have only 
found three cases which may be regarded as exceptions, Here it may 
have an intensive meaning; or, it may denote concurrent assistance. In 
the latter case, its connection will not be with “ infirmities,” as these do 
not contribute, but, on the contrary, require aid. It is best to associate 
the assistance of the Spirit with that ascribed to hope; although it is by 
means of, and in union with this principle, that the Spirit often acts. One 
illustration follows. We are ignorant both as respects the subjects and the 
manner of prayer; and hence the Spirit intercedes for us. The meaning 
is, he enables us to intercede. In the words of St. Augustin, Spiritus 
sanctus in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit. And again: Gemere dicit 
Spiritum, quod nos gemere faciat caritate.* The principle on which such 
language is used has already been stated on ver. 15, p. 152. This inter- 


*In Joan. Evang. Cap. i. Tract. vi. Sect. 2, Opera, Edit. Bened., Tom. iii. Par. ii. Ant. 1700, col. 
241. Also, Expos. Prop. ox. Epist. ad Rom. Ibid. col. 665, 


‘Cu. VIII. 25-28.] EPISTLE TO 
yao tt mpooevghueda Kado dei 
ov« oldapev, GAA’ adTo TO TrvEv- 
pa brepevtvyxadver WTep Tudv 

27 orevaypoic dAadfroc. ‘O dé 
épevvOv Tag Kapdiac oide, Ti TO 
Ppovnua Tod TrEevpaToc, OTL KATA 
Yeov évtvyydver brép ayiwy, 

28 Oidawev dé, Ott Toig dyaT@or 


145 


THE ROMANS. 


as we ought: but the Spirit itself 
maketh intercession for us with 
groanings which cannot be uttered. 
And he that searcheth the hearts 27 
knoweth what 7s the mind of the 
Spirit, because he maketh interces- 
sion for the saints according to the 
will of God. And we know that 28 


cession is said to be with unutterable or unuttered groanings; that is, 
with most earnest emotion, with feeling too deep for utterance. “ He that 
searcheth the hearts:” This is a periphrasis for God as omniscient. The 
verb expresses thorough knowledge, and is thus used in 1 Cor. ii. 10.— 
“The mind of the Spirit” is the intention of the Spirit, which leads him to 
prompt and direct the Christian’s prayer ; or the disposition, character, and 
desire, which he implants in the Christian, and which leads to such suppli- 
cation.—“Ore may be rendered “ because,” and then the meaning will be 
that God knows and approves the Spirit’s intention, inasmuch as it is in 
accordance with his will. Or, it may be translated that, and then the 
thought will be, God knoweth that the intention of the Spirit is according 
to his will. Kara 8edy, literally, according to God, is equivalent to ac- 
cording to the will of God. Comp. 1 John v. 14, where the full phrase 
occurs. In 2 Cor. xi. 17, kata Képvoy is employed in a similar way. 
28. The proposition in this verse is, that all things co-operate to the 
advantage of God’s loving children ; and, in the following ones, for to do 
good to such is his eternal purpose, and this he intends to carry into effect. 
—From the construction of the verse it has been argued as follows: ‘It is 
to them that love God that all things are to work together for good; such 
lovers of God are therefore the called according to his purpose.’ This is 
the inference, and to love God is said to be the condition of being called. 
Now let us reverse the position of the logical terms. ‘It is to the called 
according to God’s purpose that all things are to work together for good ; 
such called are said to love God. ‘The inference therefore is that to be- 
come the lovers of God we must have been those who were to be called.’ 
The one course of argument is just as logical as the other; and, as they 
prove contrary conclusions, they prove nothing. Most likely the theolog- 
ical controversies which gave rise to the above specimens of logic, were un- 
known to the author from whose statements they are thought to be derived. 
He describes a certain class of persons in two aspects ; they love God, and 
they are the called according to his purpose. Whether the former is the 
ground of the latter, or the latter of the former; whether they become 
the called because they loved, or whether they love because they were the 
called, is a mere matter of speculation, of which St. Paul does not say one 
10 


146 COMMENTARY ON TILE [Seor. X. 


all things work together for good TOv Yedv mdvta ovvepyei elo 
word. Neither would expositors have thought of drawing an argument on 
the one side or the other, if their minds had not been prepossessed by a 
system. The words describe true Christians. These cannot but love God ; 
they cannot but be the called ones according to his purpose.—* The called” 
means those who have received the Gospel. See note on i. 6, p. 22, 

What is the purpose referred to? A most important question; the 
answer to which | shall endeavour to give from a view of what the Scripture 
states on this much controverted subject. 

The noun is employed in the New Testament twelve times, of which 
only four have any bearing on the topic to be considered, namely Rom. viii, 
28, ix. 11, Eph. i. 11, iii, 11, and 2 Tim. i. 9. The verb occurs three times, 
Eph. i. 9 alone having the same bearing. These places must be carefully 
examined. 

Omitting the first, as that is the one to be illustrated, I begin with the 
second; the meaning of which is almost self-evident. “The children being 
not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of 
God according to election might stand,” &c. This relates to the divine 
intention as shown in the choice of Jacob, in preference to Esau, to become 
the father of the favoured progeny with whom God would renew his cove- 
nant relation. 

The texts in Ephesians mutually illustrate each other. In i. 9, God is 
said to “have made known the mystery of his will;” that is, his will here- 
tofore concealed or but imperfectly revealed, as the word mystery often sig- 
nifies: See the note on xi. 25: “according to his good pleasure ;” that is, 
his benevolent intention, “ which he hath purposed in himself.” The next 
two verses may assist us in forming an idea of what God is here said to 
have purposed. “That he might gather together in one all things in Christ, 
‘both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him; in whom also 
we have obtained an inheritance, being (or having been) predestinated accord- 
ing to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will.” It is evident from these words, that God’s purpose, or good 
pleasure which he had purposed, is not limited to man, but comprehends also 
celestial beings. An attempt indeed has been made to show that “ things 
in heaven and on earth” mean Jews and Gentiles. But such an interpreta- 
tion is entirely unsupported, and needs no refutation. It is the union of 
‘angels and men in one spiritual body with Christ.. And this view is in har- 
mony with several other places. Compare particularly Eph. iii. 15, Col. i. 
20, Heb. xii. 22, and note John i. 51. And true Christians, for they most 
certainly are intended by “ we,” are represented as a part of this great body, 
and admitted to the enjoyment of its privileges. These privileges, men- 
tioned under the figure of an inheritance, are the benefits of Messiah’s king- 


Ca, VIII. 28.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 147 


ayadév, toi¢ Kata TpOYEov KAH- to them that love God, to them who 


dom, both in this world and in the next. This predestination is affirmed to be 
in accordance with the purpose of God, who does every thing as his own will 
prompts, in other words, as he pleases, which, of course, must always imply 
infinite wisdom and benevolence. In the 4th and 5th verses of Ephesians, 
God’s predestination and choice are represented as anterior to the creation. 
This and other statements of the same kind are in accommodation to human 
imperfection. We speak of God as foreseeing the fall, planning a scheme of 
redemption, choosing, predestinating, before the world orin eternity, But 
all this is language accommodated to our finite conceptions. With God 
there can be neither past nor future plans or events; everything is equally 
open before him as now taking place. Inasmuch as this is the constant, never- 
beginning, never-ending purpose of God, it is represented to us as formed 
before the creation, in eternity, ere the notation of time could be marked. 

Further, this predestination and choice have heavenly blessings in view. 
No candid man can read and reflect on what the New Testament says on 
this subject without acknowledging this. It is impossible to limit these 
representations to a merely outward covenant relation, existing on earth 
and temporary, as members of Christ’s visible church. It is also internal, 
spiritual, heavenly, an adoption intended to be perfect and eternal; a pur- 
pose, having in view our ultimate holiness and consequent happiness. 

In Eph. iii. 11, the same general idea is presented: “ According to the 
eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” In order to 
ascertain what it is that is said to accord with this purpose, we must examine 
the preceding context. In the commencement of the chapter the Apostle 
alludes to the trials he was enduring for the Gentiles. This leads him to 
introduce what he calls a “ mystery of Christ.” _ This, as I have before re- 
marked, is something heretofore but little or not at all known, as he 
immediately afterwards says. He explains his meaning to be, the union 
of Gentiles with Jews in the church of Christ, and the equal admission of 
both to the benefit of Messiah’s kingdom; 1-8. This blessing, intended 
for Gentiles, it is his province to develop and show to the world; and this, 
in order that the church might become the occasion, and even means, of 
making known God’s most extraordinary wisdom. And then he adds: 
“ According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our 
Lord.” Jt has been hence inferred, that God’s “ purpose” as stated in St.Paul’s 
epistles, is, to unite Jews and Gentiles in the church of Christ. Had the 
inference been limited to the statement, that this entered into or made a 
part of the divine purpose, it would doubtless be true. But to say that it 
constitutes the purpose is erroneous, It is the same thing as inferring an 
important doctrine from one text, when others bear upon the doctrine, and 
modify or amplify the view, which might seem to be the inference from 


148 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxer. X. 


the text had it stood alone, In other words, it is drawing a general con- 
clusion from a particular premise. This, most unfortunately, is a treatment 
to which the word of God has often been subjected. In reference to his 
works, philosophy scorns such a procedure, and regards those who act thus 
as unworthy of confidence. The careful and conscientious inquirer both in 
natural science and revealed religion, will examine all the known facts that 
bear upon the point to be elucidated, and will draw his inferences accord- 
ingly. The logical conclusion from this passage is, that the union of Jews 
and Gentiles in the one church of Christ is the mystery here referred to, 
and that this union is “according to God’s purpose.” But the purpose may 
have comprehended a vast deal more. And so doubtless it did. And that 
the Apostle had a vast deal more in view is certain, and made evident 
from the context. or there he not only speaks of heavenly principalities 
and powers deriving divine knowledge from God’s church, but speaks of 
“the whole family” (or, every family, according to the more accurate ren- 
dering of the Greek and the best of the Greek fathers,) “in heaven and 
earth as named” of Christ. This corresponds with what was before said, 
and confirms the view that God’s purpose regards angels as well as men. 
Hence it is, that the reconciliation of men to God through the atonement 
of Christ, and the association of angels with those so reconciled, a}l forming 
one holy body in blessed union with God, and with Christ their head, is 
plainly declared to be a Christian doctrine, partly in the places already 
noted, and further in Col. i. 18, 20, and Heb, xii. 22, 23. 

The connection in which God’s purpose is mentioned in 2 Tim. i. 9, is 
very similar to that in the passage under consideration. ‘God hath saved 
us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but ac- 
cording to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus 
before the world began.” Here it is necessary to remark, that the word 
“given” is not to be limited to the “grace,” but relates also to the 
* purpose” spoken of. It may be applied to both nouns by a zeugma,* and 
mean ‘ purpose with regard to and grace given.’ The grace is said to be 
given “before the world began,” or from eternity. The Greek is, 7pd 
xpovur alwviwy, literally, before eternal times, or, eternal times ago ; and the 
construction corresponds exactly with that in 2 Cor. xii. 2,7p0 ér@v dexa- 
Tecoipwyr, “ fourteen years ago.” The Apostle’s meaning is that even then 
it was God’s purpose to bestow this grace. Thus the language is the same as 
that constantly employed in legal transactions; just as property is said to 
be given to unborn heirs by the testamentary disposition made by an 
ancestor. Comp. Gal. i. 15, where St. Paul is said to have been “ sepa- 
rated from his mother’s womb ;” where, beyond all doubt, the reference is 
to the divine intention. 

God’s purpose then embraces the whole series of divine arrangements, 


* See note on Heb. ix. 23, p. 131. 


Cn. VIII. 28.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 149 


appliances and operations, connected with salvation by Christ. It was his 
purpose to redeem fallen man by the atonement of his Son and the agency 
of his Spirit; and so redeemed, to unite them under Christ in one holy 
body with the angels of heaven. Consequently, they are called out of the 
world into his church, and supplied with whatever is necessary to their 
ultimate and everlasting happiness in glory. God’s purpose has in view all 
that this result requires, and also the result itself. That this result shall 
really take place, however, is not a necessary consequence of this divine 
purpose. The language of Scripture by which this whole subject is ex- 
pressed is not philosophical. When, in this connection, it speaks of God’s 
will, it is universally acknowledged that it speaks in terms adapted to the 
ordinary mind; and his will may fail of accomplishment. ‘This is undeni- 
able with regard to all such places as 1 Tim. ii. 4, where it is said that God 
“ will have,” literally, willeth, “all men to be saved.” And there is no good 
reason for supposing that the same is not equally true of what the Scripture 
calls his purpose and determination represented as formed before the foun- 
dation of the world. Will any one venture to prove that God’s will is less 
absolute and certain than his purpose ? 

Perhaps it may be objected that the words purpose, determine, decree, 
are stronger than wd/; and therefore that, while the latter may in multi- 
tudes of cases fail of accomplishment, the former never can. To this I 
would reply as follows: The strength of the objection seems to depend 
rather on our habits of thinking than on any real difference as respects 
God. The word decree contains no further idea than determination or 
purpose, whatever may haye become technically its philosophical or theo- 
logical meaning. And God’s intention or purpose is identical with his 
will. Thus we find that the Apostle speaks of the will of God in im- 
mediate connection with what he says of his purpose. Compare, “ that the 
purpose of God according to election might stand” in ix. 11, with, “he hath 
mercy on whom he wild and whom he will he hardeneth,” and “ who hath 
resisted his will,” in vs. 18,19. In the same way he speaks also in his 
Epistle to the Ephesians. “According as God hath chosen us, &c., having 
predestinated us &c. according to the good pleasure of his will :”—“ The 
mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed 
in himself :—Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who work- 
eth all things after the counsel of his own will:” i. 4-11, In the Greek 
Govanua and SéAnua are both expressed by the same English word wil, 
“counsel” in Ephesians being in the original BovA7jy ; and the same verb 
9éAw is used in the texts before cited from Romans and Timothy. God's 
intention or purpose or decree, then, is nothing more than his expressed 
will. 

To return then to the text: The called according to his purpose, 
are true Christians who have embraced the Gospel made known to them 


150 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. X. 





are the called according to his pur- Toi¢ ovotv, “Ort od¢ mpoéyvw, 29 
29 pose. For whom he did foreknow, Kai mpopice ovjyndpphove tij¢ el- 

he also did predestinate ¢o be con- K6vog Tov viov aiTod, cic TO elvat 

formed to the image of his Son, that adTdv tpwréroxov év ToAAoig 


in accordance with God’s eternal purpose to effect, in the manner and way 
stated, their everlasting salvation. 

29, 30. These verses represent God’s carrying out his purpose before 
mentioned so far as regards the “family on earth.” See Eph. iii. 16. The 
particle “ for’’ denotes this connection. 

* Whom he did foreknow:” In the usual meaning attached to the word 
knowledge with the prefix fore, the word would express a trifling truism. 
In this sense God foreknows everything, however unimportant. Such a 
frigid view must of course be rejected, as unworthy of the writer. 

Some give the meaning as follows, ‘ whom he before knew would accept 
the Gospel.’ But this adds to the text. It is the commentator’s idea, but 
it may not be the author’s. Besides, it makes the next clause worse than 
a tautology, the Apostle gravely saying that those, whose mora] character 
God foresaw would lead them to accept the Gospel, were by him predeter- 
mined to be conformed to Christ. The only way of removing the absur- 
dity of this statement is to say, that the predetermined conformity does 
not comprehend moral character. But this is a mere begging the point, 
and cannot be admitted. 

The meaning of predetermined, is by many maintained to be the idea of 
this foreknowing. Olshausen, after saying that in the latter word “the 
property of the divine knowledge only,” and in the former “ that of the will 
alone is marked,” and that “ both appear combined in the purpose,” allows 
that “nevertheless there seems to be no difference here between, he did 
foreknow, and, he did predestinate.” 

Now it may be admitted that mpoy:vOoxetv, to know before, is some- 
times employed in the sense of mpoopifetv, to determine before. This is 
probably the case in 1 Pet. i. 20, “foreordained (tpoeyywapévov’) before 
the foundation of the world, but manifest in these last times.” This meaning 
agrees best with the antithesis which the text manifestly requires: pre- 
determined but now made known. But still it is very improbable that in 
this verse of Romans the same meaning simply should be conveyed by 
both words. In every other instance which occurs in this connection, each 
verb has its own distinct signification. It is not to be presumed that this 
constitutes an isolated exception. The writer just quoted states that “in 
the verse before us it is only conformed to the image &c. that forms the 
advance in the thought.” But this is mere unsupported assertion. We 
ust therefore endeavour to give to the word some definite meaning of its 
own, in harmony with scriptural usage and with the context. 


Cu. VIII. 29, 30.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. L5Y 


30 ddeAdoig* og dE Tpowpice, TOU- he might be the first-born among 
Touc Kal ékdAece* Kal ov¢ éxdA- many brethren. Moreover, whom 30 
eoe, TovTove Kal éediKaiwoev’ he did predestinate, them he also 
od¢ d& édtkaiwoe, TovTovg Kat called; and whom he called, them 


The simple verb éo know often conveys the idea of having the mind 
kindly fixed on, regarding with unusual tenderness, Thus in Ps. i. 6, 
“The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous ;” in Amos iii. 2, “ You only 
have [ known of all the families of the earth;” in 1 Cor. viii. 8, “If any 
man love God, the same is known of him;” Gal. iv. 9, “Now, after that 
ye have known God, or rather, are known of God;” 1 Thess. v. 12, “To 
know them that labour among you.” And thus we may interpret Rom. xi. 
2, “God hath not rejected his people whom he foreknew,” in other words re- 
garded with kindness; and 1 Pet. i. 2, “elect according to the foreknowledge 
of God,” meaning his eternal kind regard. On this ground the Scripture 
uniformly places God’s benevolent course of conduct towards his ancient 
people the Hebrews, and also towards those whom he hath blessed with a 
knowledge of his Gospel. This must be known to every reader of the Bible, 
and therefore I shall refer to only one or two illustrations. In Deut. vii. 8, 
the reason stated for God’s choosing the Hebrews is: “ because the Lord 
loved you.” In Eph. ii. 4, we find God’s “ great love” given as the reason 
of his life-giving favours; and therefore the beloved disciple says: “We 
love him, because he first Zoved us.” 1 John iv. 19. 

The most probable meaning therefore of the word under consideration 
seems to be this: ‘ Whom he before (of old, that is, as shown by passages 
before alleged, from eternity,) regarded with affection.’ 

Between ovppdppove and mpowpioe we must understand yevéc0ar. We 
have a similar ellipsis of efvae in i. 17. The conformity to the image of 
Christ which God’s predetermination had in view, appears to be very gen- 
eral in its nature. It comprehends a conformity in afflictions, (ver. 17, 1 
Pet. iv. 1,) in holiness, (Rom. vi. 3-7,) and in future happiness (vi. 8, viii. 
17.)—“ First-born :” Among the Hebrews the eldest son had peculiar 
privileges. He took precedence over the other children, and had a double 
portion of the patrimonial estate. See Gen. xxv. 31-34, Deut. xxi. 17, and 
1 Chron. v. 1, 2. Some writers, both ancient and modern, add the priest- 
hood ; but this is uncertain. The word jirst-born therefore is sometimes 
equivalent to heir or lord, and thus it is used here. Jewish writers apply 
the same term to the Messiah. 

30. This verse expresses the manner in which God carries out his eter- 
nal purpose, so far as regards his course of influence and operation towards 
men. ‘Them whom he had previously intended to be conformed to the 
likeness of Christ “he called.” This expresses something more than a 
mere invitation to the blessings of the Gospel, namely, its acceptance. See 


152 COMMENTARY ON THE [Snor. X. 


ver, 28, and note on i, 6.—“ Justified :” that is, admitted to a state of accep- 
tableness with himself as a necessary consequence of forgiveness, See note 
on iy. 6-8, pp. 63, 64,—* Glorified :” -Locke’s addition, ‘in his purpose,” 
is entirely without authority, and also unnecessary ; inasmuch as the divine 
purpose had been stated before. Neither is there any propriety in attaching 
to the verb a present ora future sense. Those with which it is immediately 
connected are in the same tense, and evidently relate to what is past. He 
foreregarded; he predetermined; he called; he justified; of course, the 
next must mean, he glorified. All difficulty vanishes, when we keep in 
mind two considerations. First, the glorification referred to comprehends 
the present benefits of the Gospel which Christians now enjoy, the amelio- 
ration of their condition already produced, the gifts and graces of the Spirit 
already bestowed, and the reasonable expectation of future glory which the 
believer anticipates. Theodoret has in mind the same view, although he 
does not sufficiently draw out the thought: ‘“ Having justified, he glorified 
({them,) naming them sons, and giving to them the grace of the Holy 
Spirit.” Ubi sup. pp. 68, 69. Secondly, the future full enjoyment of the 
blessings of Christ’s kingdom do as certainly belong to the true Christian, 
as if he were already in possession of them. So long as he preserves the 
real Christian character, the full fruition is his right. The present benefits 
actually attained, and the certainty of the believer's claim to the future, are 
expressed by a past tense, “he glorified.” This is in accordance with the 
language of prophecy, which speaks of prospective blessings as already ex- 
isting and being enjoyed. Indeed so far does St. Paul carry out this view, 
that he represents Christians as not only quickened, but also raised with 
Christ, and made to sit with him in heaven. See Eph. ii. 5,6, The circum 
stance of death, though regarded by short-sighted mortals as terminating 
life and enjoyment, seems to be overlooked by the inspired Apostles, and 
they speak of everlasting glory and eternal life as already begun. Comp. 
John iii. 36. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ;” and 
xvii. 22, “the glory which thou gavest me I have given them.” That the 
word here employed might be used of present glory is evident from what 
was said on vs. 18, 19; and that this is at least a part of what the Apostle 
means, is made highly probable from the question in the next verse, 

‘The reader will bear in mind that, in the whole of this portion which 
treats of God’s benevolent purpose towards those who love him and are his 
called ones, and of the method employed by him to carry it into effect, the 
Apostle speaks exclusively of Christians; and, on the presumption that 
they are what they profess to be, that is, sincere believers. To suppose 
that these blessings are affirmed of all professing Christians indiscriminate- 
ly—hypocrites, for instance, like Simon Magus—would be preposterous, 
contrary alike to reason and Scripture. The difficulty cannot be evaded 
by attempting to limit the Apostle’s idea to those present benefits of 


Cu. VIIL. 80.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 158 


Christianity, of which all who are connected with it by outward covenant 
relation partake; for the statements are too strong to bear such a Timita- 
tion, which makes a frigid sense, quite unworthy of the whole context and 
of the plain object of the writer. It is impossible to doubt that he com- 
prehends the full magnitude of the glory of Christ’s eternal kingdom. And 
the language of 1 Pet. v. 10, is particularly worthy of attention: ‘The 
God of all grace who hath called us to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus.” 
Compare alsoiii. 9. In 2 Thess. ii. 13, itis said: “ God hath from the be- 
ginning chosen you to salvation.” The calling has in view the everlasting 
happiness of the called. And the calling and the predestinating and the 
afore-regarding with affection, are too closely associated to be dissevered 
in a candid mind. Olshausen says with truth: “It is to blessedness that 
election in St. Paul’s language refers.” Undoubtedly it does, comprehend- 
ing also all those subordinate advantages obtained in the church on earth, 
which tend to prepare men for the ultimate enjoyment of that blessedness. 
The expressions of Dr. Peile are accurate and true: The “chosen, after 
the counsel of His will who is the unseen worker of the whole scheme of 
mercy, (Eph. i. 4, 11,) are called to be, and so, in the use of all the appli- 
ances and means which He hath given them for this purpose, are in the 
way to be, and by natural consequence, (which yet they have the power 
always to intercept in its progress and defeat,) should be eventually, inher- 
itors of salvation.” On Heb. i, 14. 

Neither is it satisfactory to say that the Apostle is not speaking of 
individuals but communities. As all communities are made up of individ- 
uals, his statements must regard them as such, otherwise he would be 
speaking in the abstract, and this would give very poor consolation to the 
suffering individuals, sustaining persecutions for Christ’s sake, whom he ad- 
dresses. ‘The true view is, that real Christian character is presumed of all 
those to whom the statemems apply. And the same remark holds good 
of all such places as affirm the eternal salvation of Christ’s members, 
whether they are described as believers, in reference to the principle which 
unites them to their Lord, or, by a figure, are called lambs or sheep. If 
God’s purpose be equivalent to his will, then, as was before remarked, the 
absolute certainty of the result is not to be assumed. Whether, in the case 
of each individual it shall be carried into effect, may depend upon the use 
made of the opportunities and means of grace afforded him in Christ’s 
church. And in accordance with this view is the exhortation, “give dili- 
gence to make your calling and election sure :” 2 Pet. i. 10. 

In view of the above statement it may be asked, if the discourse relates 
exclusively to Christians, what does the Apostle here teach respecting 
others. I answer, nothing. Not that he means that there is no divine 
purpose respecting them, but he passes it over, simply because it does not 
comport with the scope of his subject to mention it. There is scarcely an 


154 


he also justified; and whom he 
justified, them he also glorified. 
31 What shall we then say to these 
things? If God be for us, who can 
32 be against us? He that spared not 
his own Son, but delivered him up 
for us all, how shall he not with 
him also freely give us all things ? 


COMMENTARY ON 


THE (Secr. X. 
édétace. Ti oiv épotpev mpd¢ 31 
Tavra; el 6 ede breO HuaY, Tic 
Kad’ hudv ; “Ooye Tov idiov viowd 32 
ovk épeicaro, did’ irép Tov 
ndvtwv tapéidwxev adbtév, TOG 
obyt Kal adv avt@ Ta TavTa 
quiv xaptoerar; Tic éyxadéoet 33 
KaTd ékAext@v Yeov ; Yedc 6 d- 


33 Who shall lay anything to the 
charge of God’s elect? Jt is God 


errour of interpretation more mischievous than that which makes a sacred 
writer’s language determine points which do not come within his field of 
view. The Apostle’s discourse relates to Christians. God’s purpose with 
regard to all others, if learned at all, must be learned elsewhere. In Luke 
xx. 35, 36, 1 Cor. xv., and Phil. iii. 11, the resurrection of those who are 
Christ’s is the subject. Whatever relates to the resurrection of the 
wicked must be sought in other parts of the Bible. This principle is ap- 
plied, without the Jeast hesitation, to compositions in general. Thus, for 
instance, in our collect for Good Friday, we pray as follows: “ Graciously 
behold this thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ was contented to 
be betrayed, and given up into the hands of wicked men, and to suffer 
death upon the cross.” The prayer, no doubt, comprehends the whole 
Christian church. But who would hence infer that it was intended to limit 
to this community the benefits of Christ’s death? The interpreter who 
would ascertain the exact sense of Scripture must be careful not to append 
to the text what it does not contain, nor to draw conclusions from it which 
it does not sanction. i 

31, 32. This appeal is founded on what had just been said. The com- 
prehensive expression “for us all” recognises the universality of the divine 
intention, and the union of Gentiles and Jews in the church of Christ. 
Compare the language of St. Peter in Acts xi. 17. 

35-37. From the time of St. Augustin to the present, some of the most 
profound and judicious expositors have preferred the interrogative punctu- 
ation. It imparts a vividness and boldness to the thought, quite in character 
with the Apostle’s intensity of feeling and elevation of mind. No wonder 
that Erasmus, embued with all that classical antiquity contains of the beau- 
tiful and sublime, should indulge his feeling in the appropriate words, quid 
usquam Cicero dixit grandiloquentius! The objection of Tholuck and Stuart 
to the number of the questions is not of much weight. The latter author 
enumerates 17, but they may easily be reduced to 8, as the clauses and 
words in vs, 34, 35, are mere amplifications of that which introduces them, 
and, except this and the last in each verse, might be pointed with commas. 


Cx. VIII. 81-35.] EPISTLE TO THE RYMANS. 155 


34 kalv; Tic 6 kataxpivwrv; Xpio- that justifieth. Who 7s he that 34 
toc 6 dro8aveérv, waAAov J& Kat condemneth? Jt is Christ that 
éyep¥eic, O¢ Kat Eotiv év deka died, yea rather, that is risen again, 
Tov VYeov, 0¢ Kat évtvyxdver who is even at the right hand of 

35 bree jay; Tic jua¢ ywpicet God, who also maketh intercession 
amd ti¢ aydtn¢ Tov Xpiorov; for us. Whoshall separate us from 35 


His objection from the want of answers is met by the remark, that each 
question contains the answer in itself. 

“Elect.” This word simply expresses two particulars; namely, that 
those so called have been chosen to all the blessings of Christ’s kingdom in 
accordance with God’s purpose before explained, and that they are choice 
ones and beloved by God. In the Septuagint the word is used of Joshua, 
the chosen and choice servant of Moses: Num. xi. 28; of Moses the chosen 
one of God: Ps. ev. 23; of David, chosen and exalted by God to be the 
head of his people: Ps. Ixxxviii. 20; of the Messiah, represented under 
the figure of a chosen foundation-stone: Isa. xxviii. 16. It is used also both 
in the singular and plural of the Hebrew people, as God’s peculiar and 
chosen nation. See Isa. xlii. 1, which, although referring undoubtedly to 
the Messiah, is interpreted by the Septuagint translators of Israel, and xlv. 
4, for the singular; and, for the plural, 1 Chron. xvi. 13, Ps. lxxxviii. 4, 
(3,) civ. (cv.) 6, 48, ev. (evi.) 5. These expressions correspond with the 
language of Moses: “ Because he loved thy fathers, had a delight in thy 
fathers to love them, therefore he chose their seed after them.” Deut. iv. 
37, x. 15. In the New Testament, it denotes Christians regarded as chosen 
and beloved by God. And thus, in xi. 7, the abstract “election” denotes 
that portion of the Jews who, by divine grace, had embraced the Gospel. 
In every case a conformity in heart and life to its requisitions, is presumed, 
and so the word elect was employed by those very early Christian , 
writers, who are known as the Apostolical fathers. Thus, in the Shepherd 
of Hermas, “his elect” occurs in connection with “his church ;” also,— 
“You can relate these things to the elect of God;—the Lord hath sworn 
respecting his elect, that if any one sin he shall not have that salvation ;—- 
go and relate his mighty deeds to the elect of God.”* In the account of 
the martyrdom of Polycarp contained in the epistle of the church of Smyrna 
and preserved by Eusebius, “the elect” and “the unbelievers” are set in 
opposition, and “this most admirable person,” Polycarp, mentioned as one 
of the former.t And Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 29, 
after saying that God ‘has made us a portion of his own election,’ illus 
trates his meaning by referring to Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, and iv. 34, where the 


* Vision I. chap. iii. vis, II. i. ii. vis. IV. ii. Pat. Apost. Edit. Cotel. Ant. 1700, vol. 1. pp. 76, 77, 88, 
+ Eus. Eccles. Hist. Lib. iv. cap. xy. p. 134, Edit. Paris, 1659. 


156 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE (Seer. X. 





the love of Christ? Shall tribula- 
tion, or distress, or persecution, or 
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or 
36 sword?‘ As it is written, For thy 
sake we are killed all the day long ; 
we are accounted as sheep for the 


DATiuc ; 7) orevoxwpia; 7) dtwy- 
Hog; 7) Auoc; 7) yupnvornc; 7 
kivdvvoc; 7} pdyaipa; Kado 36 
yéypanrat* Gre Evexev cov Ya- 
vatovueda GAnv Tijv ipépav’ 
EAoyiodnuev Oo mpoBaTa opa- 


choice of the Hebrews as a people is the subject.—The confident and tri- 
umphant challenge of St. Paul, is strikingly similar to that which Isaiah 
puts into the mouth of the Messiah, in ]. 8,9. Indeed the Septuagint has 
the very words, 6 dtxatmoac and 6 Kervouevoc. Either the Apostle quoted 
the prophet; or, more probably, the same excellent feeling in both 
prompted the same natural expressions of faith and joyous confidence. 

“The Love of Christ :” Some ancient authorities read of God, but the 
common reading. is much better supported. The general meaning would 
be the,same in either case, as Scripture often predicates indifferently the 
same thing of God and of Christ. The love spoken of is undoubtedly 
Christ’s love to us, not ours to him, as some have supposed. It must be 
granted that the words immediately following do seem to support the latter 
exposition, as it is difficult to conceive how the Apostle could represent 
affliction and persecution as at all likely to sever Christ’s affection from his 
chosen ones, while they would rather tend to unite the beloved parties the 
more closely. Still there are weighty considerations which decide in 
favour of the other meaning. The phrase, or its synonyme, “ love of God,” 
most generally in the epistles means, love exercised towards us. So in the 
other three places in which it occurs in this Epistle, v. 5. 8, viii. 89. The 
language in ver. 37, “ through him that loved us,” coincides with this view, 
which is also in harmony with the exposition before given of “ foreknow” 
in ver. 29. Besides, the phrase, ‘to separate us from the love that we feel 
for another,’ is without any sanction either of analogy or propriety. The 
afflictions and persecutions spoken of could only tend to sever Christ’s love 
to his people by inducing them first to relax their attachment and obedi- 
ence to him, thus exercising a reflex influence. 

But the Apostle declares that over all these evils the Christian triumphs 
through the might of the divine love. This love so orders all the events 
of life, even the most distressing, that they subserve the best interests of 
the true believer. “More than conquer,” that is, ‘conquer exceedingly.’ 
It is equivalent to ‘triumph,’—* Through him that loved us:” Several 
manuscripts, versions and fathers read in the accusative, on account of ; 
but the genitive reading through has the greatest weight of external testi- 
mony. It is also more in harmony with the context, as it refers to God or 
Christ as the source of that power which makes the Christian victorious. 
What follows, taken in connection with the previous context, has been 


Cu. VIII. 36-39.] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


157 


ee —  ——  SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsseFseee 


37 yg. ?AAXN? ev tobro¢e Tao 
UTEPVLKOWLEV Ola TOU dyaThoav- 
ee 7 4 a 
38 toc muac. Tlévevopar yao, ore 
v 4 ” 4 tA 
ovte Yavatog ovTe GwH, ovTE 
dyyedot ote apyai, ovte éve- 
or@ta ovre péAdovta, ote dv- 
39 vapetc, ovTe Dpwua ovTE BaVoc, 
ovTe Tig KTioLe ETépa SvVAoETAL 
mac Kwpioar and Tie dydtn¢ 
Tov Yeod THC Ev Xptot@ 'Inoov 
TO KUpi@ TUB. 


slaughter. Nay, in all these things 37 
we are more than conquerors, 
through him that loved us. For I 38 
am persuaded, that neither death, 
nor life, nor angels, nor principali- 
ties, nor powers, nor things present, 
nor things to come, nor height, 39 
nor depth, nor any other creature, 
shall be able to separate us from the 
love of God, which is in Christ 
Jesus our Lord. 


thought to sustain a doctrine much cherished by many excellent Christians, 
namely, that of the perseverance of the saints, or, as it has been also 
named, the indefectibility of grace in the elect. But the reader whose mind 
has been borne along with that of the writer in his sublime elevation of 
Christian trust, will readily perceive that he is not laying down a doctrine, 
but expressing a persuasion, a deep feeling of the utter impossibility of any 
created thing being able to separate the devoted one from him whom his 
soul loveth. The language in Phil. i. 6, where he expresses his persuasion, 
(for the Greek word is the same in both places,) in reference to his dearly 
beloved converts who had shown their filial regard for him, is of the same 
character, and might be adduced to illustrate what is here meant. The 
Apostle expresses his strong confidence, that true Christians shall forever 
enjoy the blessings which the love of Christ had procured. THe declares 
that no trials, however great and various, shall destroy their connection 
with their Saviour, and then expresses in animated language his persuasion 
that no external power of any kind shall be able to produce this effect. 
The reader will do well to compare the declarations in John x, 28, 29, 
which our Lord makes of his sheep. Who and what they are must be 
gathered from other passages.— With ver. 36 compare Ps. xliv. 22, (Sept. 
xliii, 23,) which is here accommodated. ‘The expressions which follow are 
to be understood generally of all powers which may be supposed to con- 
tend with the Christian. Koppe very judiciously remarks, that it is the 
whole idea in the Apostle’s mind which is to be attended to, and that we 
are not to inquire how every individual being here specified, angels for 
instance, can be regarded as opposing the Christian’s faith and virtue. To 
illustrate the observation, he refers to 1 Cor. iii. 22, and Gal. i. 8. It is 
plain that, in the last instance, “though an angel from heaven preach any 
other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed,” 
the author puts the most extreme hypothetical case, in order to present in 
the strongest possible terms the absolute incompatibility of any opposing 
system with the truth of the Gospel. In Romans the word “angels” im- 


158 COMMENTARY ON THE (Szcr. XI, 


plies the idea of beings possessed of extraordinary strength. Comp. Ps. 
ciii. 20. Many commentators, who have either overlooked or disregarded 
this consideration, expound the words of evil angels. Height and depth 
have been thought to refer to heaven and earth, or, figuratively, to the 
greatest prosperity or adversity. 


SECTION XI. 


Cars. IX. X, XI. 


UNBELIEVING JEWS ARE REJECTED AND BELIEVING GENTILES ADMITTED IN 
THEIR PLACE. YET THE REJECTION OF THE JEWISH NATION IS NOT AB- 
SOLUTELY FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE, ON THEIR REPENTANCE AND FAITH 
THEY SHALL BE RESTORED, 


Ir is the opinion of several expesitors, that the three chapters which imme- 
diately follow have no necessary or direct connection with the preceding 
discussion. Koppe speaks of the subject of them as entirely new, and alto- 
gether distinct from the former: plane novyum, nec ulla ratione cum supe- 
riorum capitum sententiis coherens. But this is certainly a mistake. The 
Apostle might undoubtedly have brought his argument to a close with the 
eighth chapter, the termination of which would form a noble peroration, in 
all respects worthy of the mind and heart of the writer. But the inspired 
man has not yet developed all his thoughts, not yet poured forth his deepest 
feelings, not yet advanced to the sublimest climax of his divine aspirations, 
hopes and belief. He has reasons to give for the rejection of impenitent 
Jews from the kingdom of the Messiah and the admission therein of be- 
lieving Gentiles; and in presenting them to his readers, he again explains 
and enforces the great doctrines of justification by faith and of the compre- 
hensiveness of God’s plan of mercy through the Gospel, which form the 
leading topics already proved and illustrated. 

It may be, as Olshausen remarks, that the triumphant language just 
uttered by the Apostle “awakens powerfully his feelings for his own 
nation,” and leads him to express them in the commencement of this chap- 
ter. But, independently of this connection, other considerations might very 
naturally have produced such an outburst of affection. The former charac- 
ter of Saul of Tarsus had, no doubt, prepared the leading Jews to expect in 
him the determined advocate of Judaism, and the persevering and relent- 
less opponent of Christianity. His extraordinary conversion was an 
unexpected death-blow to their hopes. Admiration and respect for his 
talents and character were changed into the most indignant hatred. They 
calumniated him as an enemy to their nation, and a traitor to his country’s 
usages and religion. Among the converted Jews, too, there were multi- 


Cu. IX. 1-8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 159 
IX. ’AAAVetav AéEyw ev Xpto7G ° I say the truth in Christ, I lie IX. 


od wetdouat, ovpyeaptupotonc 


not, my conscience also bearing me 


[Loe TAG OvvELdHoEwS ov év TvEb- witness in the Holy Ghost, that 2 
pate adyiw, dre AbdTH jot ott Thave great heaviness and contin- 
peydAn Kat adiddeitto¢ ddbvN ual sorrowinmy heart. ForIcould 3 


3 7TH Kapdia pov. wish that myself were accursed 


Hoyouny yao 





tudes who pertinaciously adhered to the ritual law. Consequently they 
could not reconcile with their prejudices the Apostle’s views of its utter 
inefficiency as a means of securing God’s favour; and therefore they re- 
garded him with suspicion and distrust. Moreover, the statements which 
he was about to make respecting the rejection of the Jews and the accept- 
ance of the Gentiles could not but be distasteful to national vanity, and in 
part unpleasant even to the converted portion of the people. The Apostle 
therefore introduces these topics with the strongest expressions of attach- 
ment to his Israelitish brethren. The good sense and tact and acquaintance 
with human nature which seem never to forsake him, would of themselves 
have suggested expressions of fraternal kindness; but, even in the absence 
of these, such an exordium would be the natural ebullition of that inex- 
haustible spring of love, which welled out from the depth of his heart. 

Cuap. ix. 1-3. "Ev Xpior@: Some regard this as a formula of swearing, 
and translate, ‘by Christ.’ But, although the preposition is thus employed, 
it is usually connected with the verb. The common meaning is prefera- 
ble; as a true Christian, one united to Christ. Comp, John xv. 4, xvii. 23, 
2 Cor. v. 17, xii. 19. Thus it corresponds with the last phrase of the 
verse, “in” or through “the Holy Ghost:” that is, speaking in harmony 
with him and under his influence.—‘ Also” is probably intended to express 
the force of oév. The Apostle by employing the preposition denotes the 
concurrent attestation of his conscience and of the Spirit who guides him. 
He generally intends the preposition in composition to have its proper 
meaning. See on viii. 26, p. 144. 

“T could wish:” The Apostle of the Gentiles, whose heart was equally 
devoted to the Jews, thus introduces the avowal of his deep affection for 
his nation ; an affection which has none greater in the history of man, ex- 
cept the not to be known love of Christ, (Eph. iii. 19,) nor equal, unless it 
be that of the beloved disciple, which prompted the words, “ we ought to 
lay down our lives for the brethren,” (1 John iii. 16,) or of the Hebrew 
deliverer, whu expressed his devotion for his misguided and sinful people 
in the language, “ Blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast 
written :” Ex. xxxii. 32. But still he does not here utter a prayer for his 
own everlasting destruction, as Chrysostom and others have supposed.* The 


* De Sacrd. Lib. iv. cap. 6, p. 186, Edit. Joan. Hughes, Cantab. 1710, and Suicer under dvddeua, 
I. 2, Tom. I. Col, 270, 271. 


160 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. XL. 


from Christ for my brethren, my avdrdc éy® dvddeua elvat azo 
kinsmen according to the flesh: Tod Xpiotod imép TOV ddeAMov 


4 who are Israelites; to whom per- Lov, TOY ovyyev@v jov Kata 
odpka* oitivéc elow lopandira, 4 


word does not express a positive wish. The imperfect is used in the sense 
of the optative. Tholuck quotes from Photius, ‘I could be willing, if it 
were proper, if it were allowable, if the choice were permitted me.’ The 
same tense is employed in Gal. iv. 20, ‘I could desire, 7X0, to be pre- 
sent,’ &c., and in Acts xxy. 22, ‘I could wish,’ éBovAduny. 

“ Accursed,” dvd¥ena for the older form dvd3jua. In the New Testa- 
ment it denotes a person devoted to destruction. See 1 Cor, xii. 3, xvi, 22, 
Gal. i. 8,9. In order to soften the apparent harshness of the idea, some 
have supposed a reference to the ruin of impenitent Jews by the overthrow 
and destruction of their temple and city, brought on by the righteous judg- 
ment of Christ, whom they had obstinately rejected. Thus the Apostle is 
thought to express his willingness, like Moses, to share with his sinful 
brethren the general excision of the nation. According to this view d76 
is to be understood in the sense of 76 and translated by, as both preposi- 
tions seem to be used in the same sense in James i. 13, 14: “tempted by 
God,” azé: “by his own lust,” t76. This, however, is a very uncommon 
meaning of d76 and the excision of the Jews is never elsewhere thus 
spoken of. Others again, influenced by the same desire to modify, have 
endeavoured to identify the meaning with excision from Christ’s church ; 
but without success, for, as Tholuck very justly remarks, this comprehends 
excision also from Christ himself. To become anathema from Christ is 
parallel with Gal. v. 4, ‘ye have become removed from Christ,’ that is, 
your connection with him has been severed. Comp. Rom. vii. 2, 6, where 
the same verb is followed by the same preposition.—It seems necessary to 
allow that the warmth of the Apostle’s feelings led him to employ hyper- . 
bolical language which must not be too strictly analysed. His general 
meaning is plain: he is willing to sustain any conceivable evil, which he 
ean rightly undergo, for the benefit of his beloved nation. No motive 
could properly induce a Christian to desire his own everlasting severance 
from Christ. That would be to desire not only misery but sin. It would 
be in a very marked sense of the phrase, to desire “evil that good may 
come ;” a detestable principle, which the Apostle has already stamped with 
the seal of his reprobation. 

4,5. The Apostle here enumerates some of the privileges of his nation, 
He purposely selects the term Israelite as being a more honourable appella- 
tion than any other that could be employed, having been given to Jacob in 
token of his prevailing with God. See Gen, xxxii, 28, and compare John i, 
47, 2 Cor. xi, 22, Phil. iii. 5.“ Adoption:” acquired sonship, implying fa- 


Cu. IX. 4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 161 





Ov 7 viodecia Kai 7H O6Sa Kai 


taineth the adoption, and the glory, 
Srad7Kat Kai 4 vowodecia Kat 


ai 
# and the covenants, and the giving 
vour, and affectionate union. See Ex. iv. 22, “Israel is my son, my first- 
born,” —“ Glory” may express the general dignity to which God had 
elevated his ancient people; or, if some particular be intended, it may be 
that of the visible divine appearance expressed by the phrase “the glory 
of the Lord appeared.” See Ex. xvi. 10, xl. 34, Levit. ix. 23, and comp. 
1 Sam. iv. 22.—“The covenants:” The plural may be used to denote 
excellence, as it often is elsewhere. See Heb. ix. 23 and note, Or it may 
refer to the two tables deposited in the ark, which are called “the covenant” 
in 1 Kings viii. 21. Tholuck objects to this, that thus understood, the 
covenants are comprehended within the giving of the law which imme- 
diately follows. But the moral law “engraven by the finger of God on 
the two tables of stone” is so important, that it would be quite natural to 
bring it prominently before the reader by a special notice. Still it is very 
probable that the plural has reference to the repeated covenants, or the 
renewal of the same covenant, made by God with the patriarchs and their 
descendants. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 11, 2 Mace. viii. 15, Eph. ii. 12, in which 
places the word is in the plural_—* The giving of the law” implies, of 
course, the extraordinary and divine attestations which accompanied that 
event.— The service” or worship recals to Jewish readers the former 
splendour and magnificence of their sacred tabernacle and temple services. 
Comp. Heb. ix. 1-6.—‘ The promises” reminds them of their connection 
with the bountiful author of their religious blessings. The Apostle sums 
up the catalogue of these by mentioning their venerable ancestors, the 
patriarchs, from whom sprang the Messiah himself in his human nature. 
The article limits the bearing of the expression, and the phrase 70 kar is 
equivalent to ‘simply as respects.’ 

If the reader wishes to examine thoroughly the various views which 
have been given of the latter half of this verse by Rationalistic, Socinian, 
Arian, and other expositors, he must consult the more extended comment- 
aries. The received reading is no doubt correct. The substitution of dy 6 
for 6 Ov has no better foundation than the conjecture of certain critics, who 
desired thereby to weaken the evidence of Christ’s divinity. It may be 
said in support of this conjecture, that the substituted reading harmonizes 
well with the context: ‘whose is God blessed forever.’ If the external 
evidence were favourable to the reading which conveys this thought, this 
reading might certainly be explained in consistency with the context. But 
it would be necessary to limit its natural full force, otherwise the author 
would contradict what he had before said in iii, 29, 30, namely, that God 
is God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. Although a limitation might 
be pleaded for by such places as Eph. ii. 12, where the Gentiles are repre- 

11 


162 COMMENTARY ON TIE Secr. XI. 





of the law, and the service of God, Aatpeia kai al érayyedAia, Ov 5 
5 and the promises; whose are the ol tatépec, kai ¢& dv 6 Xprorog 
fathers, and of whom, as concerning 70 Kata odpka, 6 dv éxi TavTWY 


sented as “ without God in the world;” yet it is not to be supposed that 
St. Paul, in his zeal to amplify the benefits of his nation, would make a 
statement at variance with what he had before said in this same Epistle, 
and also with what was essential to his general argument. But any 
reasoning on the point is unnecessary, as the reading is without support. 

To destroy or lessen the evidence for Christ’s divinity, resort has been 
had to a different punctuation from that commonly received. Some place 
a colon after odpka, and others after tdévtwyv. According to the former 
construction, the words that follow will be simply a doxology : ‘God, who 
is over all, be blessed for ever!’ And so also, according to the latter : 
‘God be blessed forever!’ Only in this case, the words, “ who is over all,” 
will be predicated of Christ, and express his general supremacy ; which, 
of course, will be modified agreeably to the respective views of the critics 
who adopt it. 

It is unquestionable that ascriptions of glory to God do occur several 
times in the epistles. See, for examples, Rom, i. 25, 2 Cor. xi. 31, Gal. i. 
5, Eph. iii. 20, 21, 1 Tim. i. 17; to which may be added, Clement’s epistle 
to the Corinthians, chap. 32, 88, 43, 45, 58, 60. And such ascriptions do 
also oceur referring directly to Christ. See 1 Pet. iv. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 18, 
Rey. v. 12-14; also Clement’s epistle, chap. 20, 50. General usage there- 
fore does not determine whether the doxology under consideration relates 
to God or to Christ. The strength of the expression “over all,” is no 
objection to applying it to Christ, for of course the universal father is him- 
self excepted from this category, and expressions equally strong are 
elsewhere employed of Christ. In Tit. i. 3, he is called “God our Saviour,” 
and in ii, 18, “the great God and our Saviour.” That the former passage 
does relate to Christ is evident from the context, which speaks of St. Paul’s 
having been commanded to preach the Gospel by this Saviour, and also 
before of God’s eternal promise; and the latter can relate to none other, 
because the appearing, émupdvera, of this “ great God and Saviour” is the 
theme of the author, and this appearing is Christ’s. 

Two considerations decide in favour of referring the doxology to Christ. 
First, it is the most natural construction of the words. It makes a suitable 
antithesis with “according to the flesh,” and thus sets his human nature in 
contradistinction to his divine. It is most in accordance with grammatical 
arrangement, as it makes 6 @y, who is, in close connection with the imme- 
diately preceding antecedent, Christ. Secondly, it is required by the 
invariable position of the epithet blessed when it occurs in doxologies, 
unless the verb eli or yivouwat be expressed. As the cases are very nu- 


Cu. IX. 5, 6.) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 163 


Sede evdoynroc ele Tod¢ alGvac* the flesh, Christ came, who is over 
any. all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 

6 Ody olov dé, tt éxréxtwxevy Not as though the word of God 6 
6 Adyog Tov Yeod* ov yao mdév- hath taken none effect. For they 
tec of && "lopand, ovtot "Iopaya- are not all Israel that are of Israel : 


merous in the Old Testament and several are found in the New, it is 
surprising that Olshausen should regard this point as of little importance. 
In the Hebrew and Greek the expression is always the same, evAoynré¢ or 
Jia never following the subject. The only seeming exception is Ps, xviii. 
(Sept. xvii.) 20. There we have Kipro¢ 6 Sede eddAoyntéc. But these 
words are immediately followed by the usual phraseology evAoynro¢ Kiptoc. 
The former is probably an interpolation, as there is nothing corresponding 
with it in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, or Vulgate. If genuine, the different 
formula may have been added by the translator for the sake of emphasis. 
Such an exception can be of no weight against the general usage, particu- 
larly as, in this case, it is of such frequent occurrence. or the satisfaction 
of the reader, I refer him to the instances which occur in the New Testa. 
ment: Luke i. 68, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3,1 Pet. i. 3. To these the follow 
ing may be added as somewhat analogous: meord¢ 6 Bed¢ in 1 Cor, i. 9, 
2 Cor. i. 18; and dvvaroc¢ 6 Yede in 2 Cor, ix. 8. The Apostle’s doxology 
is undoubtedly an ascription of eternal glory to Christ as truly God. 

6-9. “Not as though,” or ‘as that:’ The critics have found some diffi- 
culty in analysing and settling the meaning of this phrase. Tholuck has 
discussed it at length. It is probably elliptical, meaning, ‘but (it is) not 
so as that ;’ or, as Dr. Robinson expresses it, “ but not so (would I reason) 
as that” &c. See his Lexicon under olo¢ 3. The expression @¢ 67 in 
2 Cor. xi. 21, and 2 Thess. ii. 2, translated “as though, as that,” may be 
regarded as similar.—‘ The word of God:” This phrase expresses the 
divine threats or promises or both, as the context may require. Here 
God’s promises, and especially those relating to the Messiah, are meant. 
The unhappy spiritual condition of the Jewish people in consequence of 
their rejection of the Messiah, is no proof that God’s promises have failed. 
In the latter part of the verse the word Israel is used in the original first for 
the patriarch himself, and the phrase “they who are of Israel” for his lineal 
descendants. But afterwards it has a spiritual signification. In 1 Cor. x. 18, 
the merely natural descendants are called “Israel according to the flesh.” 
All these are not true Israelites ; that is, they are not really what the honour- 
able title implies; not such as their great ancestor was, who prevailed with 
God and received his blessing. In other words, all Jacob’s lineal descend- 
ants are not his spiritual children. Compare ii. 28, 29, where the rightful 
claim to the honour of being a Jew is limited to the inwardly religious He- 
brew. The Apostldé s meaning is shown by the very nature of the case, as 


164 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxor. XI. 
7 neither, because they are the seed of 00d’ dru elot o7épua ’ABpadu, 7 
Abraham, are they all children: but, 7dvtec téxva, ddd’ év "loadK 

In Isaac shall thy seed be called. K«AndijoeTai cor onépua., Todt’ 8 
8 That is, they whichare the children 0Ttv, ob Ta TéKva TIC CapKoc, 

of the flesh, these are not the chil- TadTa tékva tov Yeov" aAAd 

dren of God, but the children of the 7a Tékva Tij¢ émayyeAiac Aoyit- 

promise are counted for the seed. ¢éTat ele onépya, "Enayyesiag 9 
9 For this ¢s the word of promise, At yap 6 Aéyo¢ obtoc* Kata TOV 


this time will I come, and Sarah 


Kaipov tovtov édevoouar Kai 


is also that of our Lord in Matt. viii. 22, “let the dead bury their own dead.” 
Tholuck quotes a remarkably apposite passage from a work of Abarbanel : 
“The disciple whose morals are corrupt, although he may belong to the 
children of Israel, is nevertheless not of the number of Abraham’s disciples, 
because he does not imitate the morals of Abraham.” This is the very 
idea which the Apostle expresses in the next clause. Not all the lineal 
descendants of the distinguished patriarch are truly his children; such 
honour is not a necessary consequence of the connection. This is implied 
by the words quoted from Genesis xxi. 12, “In Isaac shall thy seed be 
called.” St. Paul plainly intimates that the fact of God’s limiting the 
favoured progeny to those that sprang from Isaac in contradistinction to 
Abraham’s other descendants, and especially those through Ishmael, con- 
veys this important truth. He takes the historical language in its religious 
and spiritual meaning. 

“ The children of the flesh” and “ the children of the Spirit,” are phrases 
founded on the birth of Ishmael according to the ordinary course of nature, 
and that of Isaac in an extraordinary way and in consequence of God’s 
particular promise. Thus, in the parallel place in Galatians, the same 
language is used respecting the birth of the two children, and the phrase 
“by promise” first applied to Isaac is afterwards commuted for “after the 
Spirit,” meaning in an extraordinary way: See iv. 23,29. The quotation 
is from Gen. xviii. 10, which is rendered in our translation, “ according to 
the time of life,” but means, most probably, ‘ when the time lives (again,)’ 
that is, about this time next year.*—The expression, “that is,” in ver. 8, 
must not be regarded as a mere formula introducing an accommodated 
sense, as in x. 7,8. The original limitation of the divine declaration to 
Isaac and his offspring implies the meaning here given, namely, that “the 
seed,” the progeny really intended, are God’s own children, spiritually born 
by virtue of his especial promise. This deeper spiritual signification of the 
terms is quite in accordance with other places. Thus, in iv. 16, 18, the 
promises to Abraham of numerous posterity are said to be verified in part 
by the union of faithful Gentiles in the church of Christ, and in ix. 27, the 


* See note 80 in my Companion to Genesis, p. 263. 


Cu. IX. 7-12.] 
10 gorae TH Vdppa vide. Ov pévov 
d&, GAAd Kat ‘PeBéxxa & éEvodc 
koitnv &yovoa “loadKx tov Ta- 
1l tpg Hu@yv: pire yae yevvn- 
VévTwy unde TpakdvTwy TL dya- 
Yov 7} KaKOY, iva f Kaz’ ExAoynV 
mpddeotg TOD Yeod pwévy, ovK bE 
épywv, dad’ éx tov KadovvToc, 
12 éppi9n adty: Ste 6 weigwy dov- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


165 





shall have a son. And not only 10 
this; but when Rebecca also had 
conceived by one, even by our father 
Isaac; (for the children being not yet 11 
born, neither having done any good 
or evil, that the purpose of God, ac- 
cording to election might stand, not 
of works, but of him that calleth ;) 
it was said unto her, The elder shall 12 


promise that a remnant of the nation should escape excision, is extended so 
as to embrace the salvation of believing Jews. See also Gal. iv. 21 et seq,., 
where the historical narrative is represented as symbolizing very important 
truths. 

10-13. Literally this portion begins thus: ‘And not only, but also 
Rebecca, having conceived’ &c. The ellipsis, which every reader perceives, 
must be supplied so as to convey the idea that not only was this so in the 
case of Sarah, but also in that of Rebecca; and this instance is adduced in 
confirmation of what had just been said. Perhaps the Apostle was induced 
thus to establish his statement, in order to meet some flimsy objection 
which might be urged on the ground that Ishmael was not the son of Abra- 
ham’s wife, but of his Egyptian servant. Nothing of the sort could be 
alleged in this case, as Rebecca was Isaac’s only wife, and the honourable 
mother of both the children, who moreover were twins. The very remark- 
able expression “of one,” which would seem to be quite superfluous, not 
to say unexpected and strange, is best accounted for on this supposition. 

“The purpose of God according to election” or his choice, may relate 
to that general purpose of his which has already been spoken of on viii. 28. 
But, most probably it is limited to the divine intention of electing or 
choosing the posterity of the one brother to the blessings of a covenant 
relationship with himself, in preference to the posterity of the other; re- 
garded, however, as an essential part of that general purpose. ‘This 
intention, as the Apostle says, was not founded on the works, that is, the 
character of the individuals; for they had not been born, and consequently 
had done nothing to establish such character. It resulted simply from the 
will of him who calleth, in other words, of God. The thought of God’s 
plan and course of action being formed by any reference to foreseen char- 
acter in man does not seem to have been in the Apostle’s mind. It is 
hardly necessary to say that God’s will must be consistent with his own 
benevolent character. Nevertheless, his will is the ultimate arbiter of all 
things. 

“The elder shall serve the younger :” Gen. xxv. 23. <A slight attention 
to the account in Genesis which is here referred to is sufficient to show, 


166 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. XI. 


13 serve the younger: asitiswritten, Aetioee TH éAdocom, Kadac¢ yé- 13 
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have ypattat’* tov “laxwB aydrgoa, 
I hated. Tov dé ’Haad éuionoa. 

14 What shall we say then? Js Ti obv épovuev; pi) ddexia 14 
there unrighteousness with God? 


that neither the sacred historian nor the inspired Apostle has in view the 
persons Jacob and Esau. It is undeniable that communities, in other 
words, their descendants, are meant. The divine declaration is expressly 
said to relate to “two nations and two manner of people; one people shall 
be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger.” 
As regards the individuals, the prediction was not verified, Jacob was 
never the superior of his brother ; on the contrary he constantly recognised 
Esau as his chief, and called him his lord. This is denied by Mr. Haldane 
on this text. He maintains that the subjection of Esau to Jacob was 
“personal.” His first proof is, the transfer of the birthright. But this was 
nothing more than the voluntary relinquishment of a claim, His second, 
that “ Esau was compelled to leave that land and to yieldto Jacob.” This 
statement he founds on Gen, xxxvi. 6. But the text merely states that 
Esau, finding his own possessions and those of his brother too large to 
admit of their remaining together, amicably removed elsewhere, and thus 
accommodated Jacob. He probably went to Mount Seir, where his brother 
had promised to follow him, See xxxiii. 14. In this particular, Esau 
seems to have imitated the conduct of his grandfather Abraham. See xiii. 
5-12. It will be difficult to see in these statements any evidence of per- 
sonal “subserviency” to Jacob. But the Edomites who descended from 
Esau were habitually held in subjection by the Israelites, and thus the pro- 
phecy was accomplished.—* As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
have I hated:” The quotation is from Mal. i. 3. The expression ¢o hate, 
especially when placed antithetically, as here, to Jove, often denotes merely 
a less degree of affection and regard than is cherished for the other object. 
See Luke xiv. 26, where “hating” one’s nearest relations and one’s own 
life is put in connection with coming to Christ. Comp, also John xii. 25. 
In Gen. xxix. 31, it is said that ‘“ Leah was hated,” while the same thought 
is expressed in the verse preceding, by the words, “he loved Rachel more 
than Leah.” Olshausen here remarks that such considerations “cannot 
satisfy the conscientious expositor, since he cannot overlook the fact that 
St. Paul has advisedly selected a very strong and repulsive expression 
from the passage in question. Nor does it make against this, that in the 
passage of Malachi the immediate question is of outward circumstances, 
since these also are to be viewed as expressions of the wrath of God.” 
Admitting all this to be true, we are still driven back to the inquiry, what 
is the meaning of God’s being said to hate? The feeling implied in the 


Cu. IX. 18-15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 167 


15 Tapa TO YEO; pj yévoito. T® God forbid. For he saith to Moses, 15 
yao Mwiioy Aéyer* EAejow dv dv I will have mercy on whom I will 
éhed, Kal olxretphow dv dv oik- have mercy, and I will have com- 

passion on whom I will have com- 


word when used by man in his present moral state is out of the question. 
The language can be nothing else than an accommodation to human weak- 
ness. It can mean nothing beyond this: ‘to act towards with seeming 
harshness.’ To determine precisely the point in the line of conduct from 
which love would practically show itself on the one side and the opposite 
element on the other, would be difficult if not impossible. Hence it is that 
according to Hebrew phraseology, which is often most accurately philoso- 
phical, a comparatively slight degree of the one is expressed by language 
which may also be applied to a slight degree of the other. It may be ad- 
mitted that “St. Paul has advisedly selected a very strong and repulsive 
expression.” Still, it is selected for no other purpose than to mark the 
more clearly God’s particular favour towards his chosen. It does not come 
within the scope of the Apostle’s purpose to speak of the future state of 
Isaac and Jacob as one of happiness, or that of Ishmael and Esau as one 
of misery. He merely intends to illustrate this point: that, as in reference 
to the patriarchal dispensation, God acted according to his purpose, and 
selected some in preference to others; so now in the Gospel dispensation 
or kingdom of the Messiah, he acts on the same principle, and admits to all 
the privileges of this kingdom some Jews, while he excludes therefrom the 
others. The character and conduct of God are shown to be invariably the same. 

14-16. From what the Apostle has said, his Jewish readers could not 
but infer, that there must be a principle of faith to constitute any the true 
Israelites, the spiritual seed of Abraham ; and that the rejection of unbe- 
lieving Jews from being a portion of God’s covenant people, was in 
accordance with his past dealings with their ancestors, and not surprising 
or extraordinary in itself, however shocking it might be to their prejudices.— 
‘“ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?” Shall we 
accuse God of injustice because he did not comprehend the posterity of 
Ishmael and Esau among his covenant people, and has rejected the present 
body of unbelieving Jews? Certainly not. Comp. iii. 6. Whether this 
yerse is intended to express a Jewish objection, or is merely the author’s 
oratorical mode of carrying on the argument, is uncertain, and has no bear- 
ing on the general train of thought. 

“He saith to Moses,” &c. The common reading is Moy, but most 
critics prefer Mwioq, which is supported by very excellent authority. The 
former reading is nearer to the form of the Hebrew name, and its really 
Hebrew origin. Pharaoh’s daughter calls the child whom she had rescued 
from a watery grave, Moses, nwa, literally drawing, (the word is the present 


168 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. XI. 





16 passion. So then itis not of him Teipw. “Apa obv od Tod BéAov- 16 
that willeth, nor of him that run- Toc, oddé tov tpéyovToc, dAAd 
neth, but of God that showeth Tov éAeodvTo¢ Veov. Aéyet yap 17 

17 merey. For the Scripture saith 


participle,) because, says she, snn7win, “J drew him out of the water.” 
Exod. ii. 10, According to the Egyptian or Coptic, 1@ means water and 
do7¢ saved ; and, in all probability, that led the Alexandrine translators of 
the Septuagint to adopt this form of the word, which so fitly expresses the 
fact. Still, it will not follow that the original name of Moses was of Egyptian 
origin; as the narrative in Exodus proves either that the princess adopted 
the language of the Hebrews in applying the name to a Hebrew child, or 
that the author of the account expressed in Hebrew what she had before 
said in her own dialect.* 

“For:” The thought which the following words are intended to impress 
and in reference to which the particle is illative, appears to be this: 
‘In the distribution of his favours God acts according to his own pleasure.’ 
In ver. 16 this thought is plainly expressed; and to establish and illustrate 
it is the principal object of the immediately following verses. The omis- 
sion of the prominent idea, when it is clearly implied in the context, is not 
at all unusual. In Luke xi. 47, the leading thought and the ground of our 
Lord’s denunciations is the hypocrisy of those whom he addresses, not the 
rebuilding and ornamenting of the prophets’ tombs; so that various forced 
meanings and constructions which certain commentators have invented to 
remove a difficulty which in reality does not exist, are unnecessary. Com- 
pare Virgil, Ain. ii, 428, Dis aliter visum, on which see the commentators. 
Keeping in mind this implied idea, it is as if the Apostle had said: ‘This 
view which | am giving need not surprise you; it is contained in several 
portions of Scripture, for instance in what God says to Moses in Exod. 
xxxiii. 19, ‘I will show favour to whom I will show favour, and I will be 
benignant to whom I will be benignant.’ The quotation occurs in connec- 
tion with the narrative of the golden calf, and the intercession of Moses for 
the idolatrous Israelites——Locke, and after him Macknight, explain “ willeth” 
and “runneth” of Isaac’s desire to bless Esau, and of Esau’s running to 
procure agreeable food for his father. But this is fanciful; and if the 
Apostle had intended such an allusion, he would most likely have chosen 
a word expressive of hunting. Running implies earnest effort, as the word 
is used in Gal. ii. 2: “lest I should run or had run in vain.” The mean- 
ing is simply this: ‘the favours in contemplation do not depend on human 
inclination and effort, but on God’s goodness and mercy.’ 

17, 18. The case of Pharaoh stands in contradistinction to that of Moses 


*See Jablonski’s Voces Egyptiacw apud Scriptores veteres, in his Opuscula, Edit. Te Water, 
Lugd. Bat. 1804, Tom, i. p. 152 et seq. 


Cx. 1X. 16, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 169 





4) ypadh TO Papad: ért ei¢ adTO unto Pharaoh, Even for this same 
_ todto &&Hyeupd of, Swe évdei- purpose have J raised thee up, that 


introduced in ver. 15 by the same particle for. Both are stated in order 
to illustrate the principle which the Apostle was establishing, namely, that 
God acts according to his own good pleasure. This is the leading idea.— 
“The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh :” That is, it contains what God said to 
him by Moses. 


“Raised thee up:’’ é 


éényetpd oe. See Exod. ix. 16, where the Hebrew 
has sons, L have made thee stand or continue, and the Septuagint 
dveTnpHoye thou hast been preserved. I shall state the most prominent 
interpretations. 

1. Some explain it thus: ‘I have raised (brought) thee into being, given 
thee existence.’ But this involves doctrinal difficulties with which it is 
unnecessary to encumber oneself; especially as it is not pretended that 
the word demands such a meaning. 

2. Others, adopting the same translation, “ raised thee up,” explain the 
clause in reference to Pharaoh’s distinguished position: ‘I have raised thee 
to high eminence, allowed thee to become celebrated as the monarch of 
Egypt, to fill the throne of the most glorious of worldly kingdoms.’ 

3. Many have contended for the translation, “I have roused thee up :” 
that is, ‘I have excited thee.’ Some have developed their meaning with 
sufficient perspicuity, by adding to the words thus translated the explana- 
tory clause, “that thou shouldst the more contumaciously resist ;” meaning, 
of course, God: See the passages in Tholuck, and the remarks of Olshansen 
against the supralapsarian scheme on ver, 17, note on p. 333. The Greek 
has certainly this meaning both in classical writers and in the Septuagint. 
If it be admitted here, we must apply the usual principle that God is said 
to do what he allows to take place, and explain thus: ‘I have suffered thee 
to be roused to opposition against me, in order that I might use thy pas- 
sions as an occasion of the display of my power.’ This view involves no 
doctrinal difficulty, and such rousing is in reality identical with God’s hard- 
ening Pharaoh’s heart. In each case it is simply permissive. Neither is 
the objection urged by Tholuck of much weight, that we might rather have 
expected ératpuva, or, what afterwards occurs, éoxAjjpuva. His other, 
that the words against me would have been added, is of more importance. 

4, The only other meaning of the word which I shall mention, and en- 
deavour also to establish as the most probable, is that which is conveyed, 
though not with sufficient precision and fulness, by the Septuagint transla- 
tion. It cannot be thought the Apostle substitutes the more accurate 
einyeipa oe for dteTnp7Ic¢, without some sufficient reason. We must be- 
lieve it to have been designedly done, in order to call the reader’s attention 
not merely to the fact of Pharaoh’s conservation, which the Septuagint states - 


170 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. XI. 





I might show my power in thee, §wpyat év ool tiv dévapiv pov 
and that my name might be de- kai dmwe dtayyeAq 70 bvoud 
clared throughout all the earth. pov év mdoy 77 yy. “Apa ovv 18 

18 Therefore hath he merey on whom d6v SéAet, éAcei, bv dé VEAL, 
he will have mercy, and whom he 





but of its having been the result of causes operating in direct accordance 
with the divine will, thus showing why God preserved him. By changing 
the word he intimates that Pharaoh had been an instrument in the hand of 
God. The Greek translator rather gives the general sense than an accurate 
version of the original. Still, the point of the quotation is evidently this, 
that Pharaoh’s life had been prolonged, and that thus his conduct had be- 
come the occasion of carrying the divine purpose into effect. The decla- 
ration is made by Moses after Pharaoh and the Egyptians had been greatly 
afflicted by former plagues. A slight attention to the connection in which 
it stands will illustrate the meaning. After the usual command to let the 
people go, the address proceeds thus: ‘I could at this time send all my 
plagues, &c.; I could now stretch out my hand that I might smite thee and 
thy people with pestilence, and thou shouldst be cut off from the earth. 
But in very deed for this haye I caused (or permitted) thee to continue, to 
show in thee my power,’ &c. The Hebrew future is often used in this po- 
tential sense.* The same Hebrew word is used in Exod. xxi, 21, in refer- 
ence to a servant continuing (to live) a short time; and the Greek éyepet 
occurs in James v. 15, of raising up a sick man, in other words, causing 
him to continue in life. Pharaoh may well be regarded as brought low 
by the former plagues which had been inflicted on him and his people ; and 
his being caused by God to continue, which is the exact sense of the He- 
brew word, St. Paul may express by the Greck ‘I have raised,’ meaning 
‘kept thee up.—The 18th verse contains the assertion before made put in 
the form of an inference: “ Therefore” &e. 

“He hardeneth, oxAnpbvec: This word with d7é is used in the Septu- 
agint, Job xxxix. 16, in the sense of éreateth harshly. For this reason, and 
also because it makes a suitable antithesis with éAcez, he shows mercy to, 
some critics have given the same meaning here, explaining thus: ‘accord- 
ing to his pleasure, he is benignant to some, and to others severe.’ But 
the narrative of Moses, and the general signification of the verb, are deci- 
sive in favour of the usual meaning “ to harden,” that is, ‘to suffer to con- 
tinue obstinate.’ The form of expression respecting this subject varies, 
Sometimes God is represented as the agent in hardening; sometimes Pha- 
raoh is said to harden himself; and sometimes the general statement is 
made, that his heart was hardened. See Exod. vii. 8, ix. 12, x. 1, 20, 27, 


*See Conant’s Translation of Roediger's Gesenius, Sect. 125, 3, d), Part III. p. 238, Appleton, 
N. Y. 1846. 


Cn. IX. 18-20.] 


19 oxAnpbver. "Epetc¢ ovv wou: te 
ete wéperat ; TO ya BovdAruare 
20 avrovd tic dvdéoTnKe; Mevovrye, 
® avdpwre, od Tic el, 6 dvTaro- 
Kpivouevog TO YE ; juz) Epet TO 


EP{STLE TO THE ROMANS. 


UTE 


will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say 19 
then unto me, Why doth he yet 
find fault ? for who hath resisted 
his will? Nay but, O man, who 20 
art thou that repliest against God ? 


xi. 10, xiv. 4, 8, 17, viii. 15, 32, vii. 14, 22, viii. 19, ix. 7,35. The first 
of these formule is the most frequent, probably in order to draw the read- 
er’s attention to the divine agency in allowing such a condition of mind to 
show itself. But it is evident that God’s agency in such induration can be 
nothing more than permissive ; it cannot militate against the free agency 
of the man. Olshausen rightly observes, that “this hardening is not the 
beginning of an evil state ; it rather supposes this as being already begun. 
St. Paul does not say that God awakens the beginnings of evil in men. He 
considers these as already in being, first as a consequence of original sin, 
and then on account of man’s own unfaithfulness, which does not suppress 
the already existing sinfulness, but only gives it sway.” 

19. This is generally regarded as an objection founded on the immedi- 
ately preceding declaration, “‘whom he will he hardeneth.” But, most 
probably, it is drawn from the whole doctrine which the Apostle has all 
along been establishing. The meaning seems to be as follows: ‘If God 
is governed by a regard to his own plans, which human efforts cannot alter, 
and if he makes even human wickedness subserve those plans, why does 
he find fault with us, as our rejection of the Gospel promotes his purpose, 
(comp. iii. 5, 7,) which no one can effectually resist? If he shows favour 
to some and suffers us to remain obstinate, as you intimate, why does he 
blame us, since such is his will, which no created power can withstand ? 

20-23. The objection above stated involves a censure of God for dis- 
continuing to the Jews the religious privileges which they had so long 
enjoyed. St. Paul here replies to it. He begins by declaring the absurdity 
and wickedness of a creature’s undertaking to censure the creator for not 
having made him a different sort of being from what he is, and illustrates 
his remark by the case of the potter moulding the clay. ‘ Admitting that 
God rejects the greater part of the Jewish nation, has he not as creator 
the right to place his creatures in whatever situation he chooses? What 
right have you, a weak man, to find fault with him for exercising his just 
and natural prerogative? As well might the thing made complain of its 
maker for not having formed it something else. God has plainly a right 
to put the being which his power has produced in any rank among his 
creatures, and to give if as many or as few advantages as he pleases,’ 
Since therefore the Jews would have had no reason to complain if the 
Supreme Being had never granted them the peculiar benefits of his coye- 
nant; they surely could not reasonably object, if, for sufficient reasons 


172 COMMENTARY ON THE [Szer. XT. 


Shall the thing formed say tohim TAdowa 7@ tAdoavTt: Ti pe 
that formed it, Why hast thoumade étoinoac ottwo; “"H ove éyet 21 
21 methus? Hath not the potter power é&ovoiav 6 kepamedo Tov mNAOD, 


and in order to promote most important purposes, he withdrew from them 
these benefits. 

But this is merely a general answer. The Apostle proceeds to reply 
more particularly, and shows that the Jews have no reason to complain of 
their rejection, since God had treated them with the greatest indulgence. 
This is the full and proper and direct answer to the insolent objection. 
God has not confined his action to the exercise of his rights as Creator; he 
has shown his love, by bearing with the obdurate impenitent, as well as by 
extending his benevolence to others. 

“Nay but,” wevovvye: ‘Aye truly, rather indeed.’ The particle has a 
corrective foree: You say, “why doth he find fault?’ I reply, ‘rather, 
man, who are you that venture thus to bandy words with God? The 
Apostle intends to express the gross indecorum and wickedness of such a 
procedure.—* Power over the clay :” The Greek genitive is correctly thus 
translated. Comp. Matt. x. 1, “power over unclean spirits,’ tvevydtwv 
dxaddptwv, The illustration from the potter is similar to the passages in 
Isa, xxix. 16, xlv. 9, and especially Jer. xviii. 2-10. 

The connection of vs. 22 and 23 has been-variously represented by the 
commentators, to whom I must refer the critical reader. The first of the 
two verses may be an aposiopesis, that is, a suppression of the full sense, 
thus: ‘But if God, though intending to show his power, still bore with 
those men who were fitted for,’ or, ‘had fitted themselves for destruction ; 

> Similar to this we have in Exod. xxxii. 32, “ yet now, if thou wilt 
forgive their sins—; and if not,” &c. Some regard the sentence as elliptical, 
and understand, what shall we say then? or, why doth he yet find fault ? 
But, as Olshausen remarks, this is nothing but a repetition of the language 
of ver. 19. It would be vastly better to supply from the preceding verse, 
“hath he not power,” or ‘right,’ éovoiav ;—* Vessels of wrath, vessels of 
mercy,” are figurative expressions, naturally arising from the image of the 
potter before employed, and denoting those persons who may be the sub- 
jects respectively of the divine benevolence or chastisement. That the one 
class may become the other, is certainly true, although this consideration 
has no bearing on the Apostle’s statement.—‘ Show his wrath:” Comp. i. 
18, iii. 5.—“ His power,” dvvarév for dévauty, as in ver. 17. Comp. yywo- 
Tov ini, 19. 

Karnpttouéva simply expresses their condition, “ fitted for.” Tow. or 
by whom, or under what circumstances, must be learned from the context 
and analogy of Scripture, both of which give the impression that this con- 
dition was produced by their own course of conduct. Professor Stuart 





Cn. IX. 21, 22. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 1738 


EK TOD avTOV Hupduatoc TroLjoat over the clay, of the same lump to 
6 pév ele Tysav oxevoc, d dé cig make one vessel unto honour, and 
22 dtiyiav; Ei d& SéAwy 6 Yed¢ another unto dishonour? What if 22 


thinks that the antithesis between this word and the phrase “ whom he had 
before prepared,” proves that the condition of being. fitted is ascribed to 
divine agency. There would be no difficulty in explaining the meaning 
and showing its aceordance with other parts of Scripture, if it were certain 
that such is the sense. But this is not proved by the antithesis. or the 
Apostle may speak of God’s being the agent in preparing for glory, in order 
to keep up in the reader’s mind the necessity of the divine influence for 
good; while, at the same time, he may designedly employ an indefinite 
term in describing the moral condition of obdurate sinners. Professor 
Hodge judiciously observes, that “when speaking of the vessels of mercy, 
the active voice is used, as if designedly to mark the difference between the 
two cases.” To the same purpose Doddridge: “Every attentive reader 
will, I doubt not, infer for himself the great difference of phrase in which 
they who are vessels of wrath and they who are vessels of mercy are 
spoken of; it being said simply of the former, that they were fitted for de- 
struction, but of the latter that God prepared them for glory: a distinction 
of so great importance that I heartily wish we may ever keep it in view.” 
Olshausen is of the same opinion. “ Prepared before signifies God’s fore- 
knowledge as well as his working and creation of the good, both in its 
commencement, continuation and end. But of the evil, on the other hand, 
Paul will not consent to say that God creates the evil in them, but only 
the form which the evil assumes. Therefore he does not use prepared of 
them; moreover instead of the active he uses the middle form, by which 
the production of evil itself is transferred to the side of the creature. The 
Apostle intended by this method to signify the different relation in which 
God stands to the good and the evil.” To which he adds that the other 
view is inconsistent with the expression, “ endured with much long suffer- 
ing.” “There is something not only discordant but absolutely contradic- 
tory in the idea that God thus endures what he has himself prepared.” 
As cases somewhat similar, I will remark that in the last verses of the 5th 
and 6th chapters, the Apostle adds to life the epithet eternal, although he 
omits it in reference to the contrasted word death. 

“And that he might make known.” Tholuck examines various ways 
in which these words have been thought to be connected with the preced- 
ing. According to Stuart, iva yvwpioy is dependent on YéAwy, and 
equivalent to the infinitive yvwpioas as expressed in ver. 22. As this con- 
struction presumes an ellipsis in ver. 23, he supplies it by introducing at 
the end “showed mercy.” The meaning thus elicited is quite in harmony 
with the context. Iam disposed to believe, however, that the Apostle has 


174 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. XI. 


—_--——- ~— 





God, willing to show Ais wrath, and évdeiEaodat tiv dpyijy Kat yvw- 
to make his power known, endured pioat TO dvvardv avbrovd ijveyKev 


another thought in mind. “Iva may be ecbatic and the words be explained, 
‘and thus does he make known.’ The following statement will assist the 
reader in perceiving and judging of the proposed meaning. 

It appears from historical statements in the New Testament, that, in 
making known the Gospel to mankind, it was the divme purpose that it 
should first be promulgated to the Jews. This accords with our Lord’s 
own practice, who spent a considerable portion of the first year of his min- 
istry in Jerusaiem and Judea; with his directions to his Apostles; and 
with their practice pursuant thereto. See John ii, 13—iv. 3, 45, Luke xxiv. 
47, Acts i. 4, and other similar places. Multitudes of Jews did indeed 
receive the Gospel, but still the mass of the nation rejected it. It appears 
from the evangelical history so fur as it is given in the Acts, that the 
Apostles first made the offer of the Gospel to the Hebrews, and on their 
rejection of it, proclaimed it freely to Gentiles; and, moreover, that its re- 
jection by the former became the occasion of direct proclamation of it to 
the latter. See particularly Acts xiii. 46 et seq. ‘It would seem that the 
Jewish prejudice which limited the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom to their 
own nation, (a prejudice which maintained influence on the mind of the 
Apostle Peter even after the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 
and until it was removed by the vision of the great sheet,) was in a great 
degree dispelled by the fact that the Jews obstinately closed their eyes to 
the truth, while Gentiles “gladly received the word.” Thus the rejection 
of the Gospel by the former led, in the providence of God, to its becoming 
known, appreciated, and obeyed by the latter: “To the Jew first and also 
to the Greek.” Comp. Acts xi. 19-21. In Rom. xi. 11, 12, 15, 30, the 
admission of Gentiles to the benefits of Christ’s religion, is represented as 
having taken place in consequence of its rejection by the Jews. Is it im- 
possible that the Apostle may have been influenced by the same thought, 
when he wrote this passage? He does not indeed say in express terms 
that the Jews had rejected the Gospel; but his course of remark implies, 
and would suggest it to every reflecting reader. It seems to me probable, 
therefore, that this is what he means. If so, the words, “that he might 
make known” &c. will be connected with the idea so prominent in the 
preceding context, namely, the rejection of the mass of unbelieving Jews. 
The leading thought will then be as follows: God hath rejected the impen- 
itent Jews, who by a long course of faithlessness had rendered themselves 
utterly unworthy of his continued favour, and thus he has promulged the 
abundance of his kindness to others. These indeed are represented as 
consisting of Jews as well as Gentiles; but it is evident that the latter con- 
stitute the predominant portion in the view of the Apostle. 


OE 


On. IX. 22.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 175 


év TOAAH paxpoSvpta oxetn dp- with much long-suffering the ves- 
Yi¢ Katnptiopéva sig dmMAeay, sels of wrath fitted to destruction ; 


Grotius on xi. 11, suggests a reason for a predominance of Gentile over 
Jewish converts being allowed to take place in the early Christian church. 
He says that if the Jews had obtained the ascendancy, they would have 
opposed the admission of the Gentiles into the church, unless they submit- 
ted to circumcision and the Mosaic law, and that this is evident from the 
feeling which prevailed so extensively on this subject among many influen- 
tial Jewish converts. See Acts xv. 1 et seq. and xxi. 20 et seq. But since 
they were much the smaller body, they were not in a condition to impose 
laws on the others. And thus, he remarks, that God, by a wisdom truly 
admirable, brought light out of darkness. But this representation is quite 
uncertain. It is to be presumed that, if the Jewish converts had become 
more numerous than the Gentile, the same divine grace which enabled 
them to perceive and feel the truth of the Gospel, would also have imparted 
to them such knowledge of its spirituality, and such practical wisdom and 
charity towards all their converted brethren, as would have prevented such 
aresult. Like Peter, the great body of them would have remitted their 
attachment to the external law, and liberated themselves from a system 
which he, who had been so long under complete subjection to it, declared 
to be “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear:” Acts 
xv. 10.—* Riches of his glory,” conveys the idea of the fulness and excel- 
lence of the divine favour, as before explained. Comp. Eph. i. 7, 18, ii. 7, 
Col. i. 27. 

IIponrotwace. “ Afore prepared:” This, as Professor Hodge remarks, 
is “the common and proper meaning of the word.” But what he adds in 
connection with this can by no means be admitted. “ As fo prepare before- 
hand and to predestine are very nearly related ideas, the word is also used 
in this latter sense. Eph. ii. 10, ‘ which God had before ordained that we 
should walk in them.’ This meaning is commonly adopted here,* ‘ which 
God had fore-ordained unto glory ;’ see the parallel passage in Acts xiii. 48, 
‘as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ The other significa- 
tion of the word, however, gives a very good sense.”—Certainly it does. 
It gives the only sense allowed by general usage. The word never occurs 
in the New Testament, except here, and in the place in Ephesians. In 
both it has the same meaning, and the correct translation of the latter is, 
‘that we should walk in which God hath before prepared.’ Without the 
preposition the word occurs 40 times, and always in the sense of preparing, 
never of destining. Neither is it correct to say that “this meaning is 
commonly adopted here.” Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and 
Rheims translations all give the idea of preparation. Wahl does indeed 


*See Wahl’s Clavis on the word. 


176 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. XI. 








23 and that he might make known the Kal iva yvwpioy Tov TAOdTOY 23 
riches of his glory on the vessels of Ti¢ d6En¢ avrod ext oxebn EAéE- 
give this sense, but he says nothing in defence of it. The place in 
Acts is not parallel, inasmuch as the word is different, and the meaning 
cannot be proved to be the same. Rosenmiiller, in his Scholia on the 
New Testament, refers, for the same signification of predestinating, to Gen. 
xxiv. 14, and Matt. xxv. 384. But the references are unsatisfactory. In 
the first text, the English translation has, “ thou hast appointed,” and the 
Septuagint 7jroyudoag. In the Hebrew the word is Hy25, which, according 
to Jarchi, and the best Biblical scholars, means, thou hast proved or given 
proof of ; that is, hast shown to be the damsel who is to become the wife 
of Isaac. In the second, the ordinary meaning of “prepared for you” is 
undoubtedly the true one, as in every other similar passage. And so it is 
in the verse under consideration. ‘To “ prepare before for glory” those on 
whom God intends to confer the full blessings of Messiah’s kingdom, is the 
same thing as to make all necessary previous preparations for their future 
happiness. It is identical with the idea in Ephesians: ‘God hath made all 
previous preparations that we should walk in goed works.’ The Vulgate 
in both places translates preparavit. Thus we read, that honours have 
“been prepared by the father,” of a “kingdom prepared,” of Christ’s going 
“to prepare a place,” of “things prepared for those who love God,” and of 
his having “prepared for them a city.” See note on Heb. ix. 23, p. 132. 
The inspired writers may speak of the preparation of the place or of the 
persons or of the arrangements necessary to the accomplishment of the 
divine scheme of salvation; yet the general thought is one and the same. 
God hath done the whole; the preparation for glory, as well as the plan 

whereby it becomes attainable, is all his own. 

There is still another view which may be taken of this and similar pas- 
sages; and probably it is best to comprehend it within that just stated. 
It is simply this, that as God is said to do what he determines, so he may 
here be represented as having prepared for salvation those whom he had 
purposed to save. But this will not affect the meaning of the word, which 
will still convey the idea of preparing those contemplated by the divine 
purpose. 

Here it may be well to give a brief view of the leading train of thought 
from the 14th verse. ‘From what has been said, can God be charged 
with injustice? Certainly not. But he acts according to his own pleasure, 
as he says, ‘I will show favour and benignity to whomsoever I will.’ His 
plans all originate from and are carried out in accordance with his own 
will, so that their direction and arrangement do not at all depend upon 
human inclination or effort, but solely on the divine wisdom and benevo- 
tence, And, to give an instance of a bad man being made subservient to 


Cu. IX. 23-26.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Vel 





ove, & mpontoiwacev sic dav, mercy which he had afore prepared 
24 ov¢ Kat éxddeoev Huac, o} ovov unto glory, even us, whom he hath 24 
&&lovdaiwy, dAdd Kat & &9vGy, called not of the Jews only, but also 
25 we Kal év TO ‘Qoné A€yer* Ka- of the Gentiles? As he saith alsoin 25 
Aéow TOV ov Aadv ov Aady ov, Hosea, I will call them my people, 
kat tiv ove ayarnuévnv aya- which were not my people ; and her 
26 myuévyv? Kat gota év TO TOT, beloved, which. was not beloved. 
ob éppidn avtoic: ov Aaédc ov And it shall come to pass, that in 26 


the divine plans, it is said of Pharaoh, that God had allowed him to con. 
tinue in order to display his power through the monarch’s obduracy, and 
thus to spread his glory in the world. It is plain, therefore, that God so 
disposes all things as to promote his own purposes, extending his benefits 
to some, and suffering others to continue obdurate. Will you object that, 
since God’s plans cannot be altered by man’s efforts, no blame ought to be 
found with your conduct, because it subserves those plans? I reply, first, 
that this is presumptuous and insolent in so uninformed a creature, and 
that the maker of all things has unquestionably a right to dispose of his 
favours as he pleases, granting to one portion of mankind a greater and to 
another a less degree of benefit. And, secondly, to speak plainly in refer- 
ence to the rejection of unbelieving Jews as God’s covenant people, if God 
hath borne patiently with you although you have merited condemnation, 
~ will you be querulous against what should excite your gratitude? In con- 
sequence of your obstinate rejection of his son, he withdraws from you the 
blessings of this covenant relation, and bestows them on the Gentiles with 
a view to the ultimate salvation of all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who 
may accept the proffered mercy, and for whose happiness he hath fully 
provided,’ 

24-26. Here the Apostle plainly states whom he means by the figura- 
tive phrase, “vessels of mercy ;” namely, Jewish and Gentile Christians, 
applying the passages from Hosea to the latter class. The masculine od¢ 
refers to 7judc¢, us, which expresses the meaning of the neuter antecedent 
oKebn, vessels, that is, the persons so designated. The quotations are from 
i. 10, and ii, 23; or, according to the Hebrew notation, ii. 1, 25. The 
prophet is certainly speaking of the restoration of the Israelites to divine 
favour, and there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul either understood 
or intended to expound his meaning otherwise. The prophecy relates to 
the ten tribes, whose idolatry and wickedness are described under the 
image of a faithless wife and abandoned children, who are disgraced and 
punished by the indignant husband and father, but after a long period of 
penal discipline, are at length readmitted to favour.*—The feminine, “ her 


* The reader may find sn exposition of the first chapter of Hosea, as given in the Targum of Jon- 
athan ben Uzziel, and in the Commentary of Dayid Kimchi, in my Jewish Rabbies, p. 165 et seq. 


12 


178 COMMENTARY ON TIE (Seer. XT. 








the place where it was said unto tpeic, éxel KAndjoovrar viol 
them, Ye are not my people; there eo C@vtoc. ‘Hoatac dé xpdser 27 
shall they be called the children of t7é9 Tov "lopajA* édv @ 6 

27 the living God. Esaias also crieth dptSud¢ TOV vid "lopandA Oc H 
concerning Israel, Though the num- dupo¢ ti¢ YaAdoonc, 70 KaTa- 


beloved,” refers to the fact, that the prophet describes the once rejected but 
now restored people under the symbol of his daughter, named Lo-ruhamah, 
that is, not ‘beloved In the place :” This does not mean ‘instead of;’ it 
marks locality. This is proved from the adverb that follows, “there ;” and 
thus we have the same language, both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, in 
1 Kings xxi. 19: “ Zn the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there 
shall dogs lick thy blood.” The prophet undoubtedly means, that in what- 
ever countries the scattered Israelites may be dispersed, there shall they, on 
their conversion, be recognised as God’s people.—The language of God to 
the favoured Israelites by which the renewal of his love is expressed, is 
here applied to the Gentiles, who had so long “ been alienated from the 
life of God by wicked works,” (Eph. iy. 18, Col. i. 21,) but were now by 
the Gospel brought into his family and blessed with his returned affection. 

27-29. “Crieth:” That is proclaimeth openly. The same word is thus 
used in John vii. 28, xii, 44.—'Y7réo has the meaning of 7repi, concerning, 
as in 2 Cor. vii. 4, and elsewhere.—The prophet’s declaration, as cited in ver. 
27, is evidently to this effect : ‘however numerous may be the body of the 
Jewish people, yet the remnant (only) shall be saved.’ Td KkardAcuupa 
is undoubtedly emphatic. It refers to the divine promise, repeatedly 
alluded to by Isaiah, that, although the nation might be exposed to various 
attacks and even excisions, yet their enemies should not entirely triumph ; 
there should still be a reserved portion, a remnant of the people, in accord- 
ance with the divine promise made to the prophet when called to his 
mission among his countrymen. Notwithstanding the wasting, and the 
desolation and the removal and the forsaking, “a tenth shall return, the 
holy seed:” vi, 11-13. This promise is, as I have said, several times re- 
ferred to, The very name of one of Isaiah’s sons, Shearjashub, that is, a 
remnant shall return, was given him evidently in order to keep up in the 
mind of the people this promise, and thus to strengthen their faith in it. 
This accounts for the fact that the prophet is directed to take this son with 
him when he goes “to meet Ahaz:” vii. 3. Now, although the preservation 
of this remnant, and its restoration after temporal and political dangers, 
are announced by Isaiah, it is by no means necessary to limit his prediction 
to merely civil occurrences and immunity from national evils. The Apos. 
tle applies the promise more generally. He shows that it comprehends a 
reference to the faithful part of the Israelites, the deliverance or salvation 
secured to them being spiritual and heavenly, and by the instrumentality 


Cu. IX. 27, 28.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ‘179 





28 Aeyupa owdShoerat. Adyov yde ber of the children of Israel be as 
ovvTeA@v Kat ovyTévwv év dt- the sand of the sea, a remnant 
Kaloobvy* dtt Adyov ovytetun- shall be saved. For he will finish 28 
pévov Trorjoet Kiptoc ext THC y7¢. the work, and cut i¢ short in right- 

eousness ; because a short work will 


of true religious faith. And there is no occasion to suppose that he accom- 
modates the language of the prophet to his own immediate purposes. He 
does but develop its full meaning. That the politically saved remnant 
was asymbol of those religiously saved, is a view which entirel y harmonizes 
with the general analogy of prophecy, especially that of Isaiah; and it 
seems to be intended by the words, “The remnant of Jacob shall return 
unto the mighty God :” x.21. The last clause expresses a religious con- 
version. 

The quotation in ver. 29 from Isaiah i. 9, is explicable on the same 
principle. The prophet, most probably, speaks of the preservation of Judah 
from utter ruin, threatened by some very sanguinary attacks of their en- 
emies. To what particular slaughter he refers, it is difficult to say. Bishop 
Lowth inclines to the opinion that some invasions made by Resin and 
Pekah “at the latter end of Jotham’s reign, are referred to in this pro- 
phecy.” See his note on ys. 7-9. Rosenmiiller, on ver. 7, remarks, that 
“some consider the language as descriptive of those miserable times during 
the reign of Ahaz, when not only the Israelites under Pekah, but the Syrians 
also from the north, the Edomites from the south, and the Philistines from 
the west, invaded Judea, ruining the country, seizing the cities, and captur- 
ing thousands. See 2 Chron. xxviii. 5-19.” He objects to this view, 
however, on account of the order in which the prophecies are arranged, and 
thinks that what is here said relates to the state of things under Uzziah, 
after Amaziah had been conquered by Joash, King of Israel, his people 
terribly slaughtered, his country and capital Jaid waste, and even the walls 
of Jerusalem in a great measure destroyed. See 2 Kings xiv. 8-14, 2 Chron. 
xxv. 14-24. The prophet may have his mind on these eruptions, and also 
on the devastations which were caused by the Assyrian invasions, of which 
we have so graphical and poetic a description in Isa. vii, 18-25, viii. 21, 22, 
and x. 6. This representation of the wretched condition of the people, the 
Apostle applies to the spiritual state of the Israelites, rejected by God with 
the exception of the chosen and choice remnant. 

This comprehensive view of Isaiah’s language accords with the appli- 
eation of the prediction in Genesis relating to the vast number of 
Abraham’s progeny, which is made by the Apostle in iy. 16; where see the 
note, p. 69. 

The 28th verse remains to be considered: “For he will finish the 
work” &c, The word rendered “ work” is Aéyoy in both places, and there 


180 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seor. XI. 


the Lord make upon the earth. Kai xada¢ tpoeipnkev ‘Hoatac: 29 

29 And as Esaias said before, Except él p17) Kiptocg oaBawd éyxarédurev 
the Lord of Sabaoth had left usa div orépa,wc Lodoua dv éyev- 
seed, we had been as Sodom, and 7jmev Kai we Topuoppa dv 
been made like unto Gomorrah, @ovwdquer. 


is no propriety in giving it this meaning, which is not sustained by Greek 
usage. Neither is there any necessity for translating it hing, although this 
would make a good sense. Its usual signification of declaration, expressed 
determination, affords a very suitable meaning. Lvvtéuwywy, which properly 
means “cutting together, contracting by cutting,”* is explained by some in 
the sense of Jessening, shortening ; by others in that of decreeing, determin- 
ing. Tholuck prefers the meaning of accelerating, hastening, according to 
the idea, so common in the Old Testament, of God’s punishments quickly 
overtaking the impenitent sinner. Thus the whole verse will convey the 
thought that, in his righteous indignation, God is quickly completing his 
announced detelmination, for he will make his determination (to be) quickly 
executed in the earth (or, the land.) 

The words in Isa, x. 22, latter half, and 23, here quoted, are explained 
by the great mass of commentators, as referring to the overwhelming de- 
structions which God had determined to bring upon the Jews and Israelites. 
And certainly this view of them agrees with the former half of ver. 22, 
“though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them 
shall return,” and also with their apparent application by the Apostle. 
Still, it would seem that the prophet has in view the immediate overthrow 
of the Assyrian forces, and the very extraordinary destruction which swept 
off multitudes of them in one night: See 2 Kings xix. 35, or Isa, xxxvyii. 36. 
The section begins with the 5th verse. The prophet describes the infidel 
insolence of this haughty power, that regards itself as independent, and 
threatens excision to the people of Jehovah. He speaks of it as the feeble 
and passive instrument, in the hand of the Almighty workman, and threatens 
it with deserved punishment under the figure of the conflagration of a 
forest: 5-19. Then follows the effect of this divine judgment on the 
character of those of the Israelites who had escaped former attacks; they 
‘shall turn from those human helps which, instead of benefiting, had injured 
them, and shall trust in the only defence, their own true God. To him 
they shall return by penitence and faith. Numerous though they may 
have been and may even continue hereafter to be, yet the remnant only 
shall return. While the prophet does indeed limit this promise to the 
remnant, yet it is quite certain that a very prominent thought in his mind 
is, that they shall most certainly return. It would therefore, be very natu- 
ral for him to connect immediately with this promise a declaration, that 


* Robinson's Lexicon. 


Cn. IX. 29, 80.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 181 





30 Ti ovv épodpev; dre BSN Ta What shall we say then? That 30 
uu Sdkovta dikatoobynv Katé- the Gentiles, which followed not 


God’s purpose to “consume” the hostile Assyrians should be completely 
effected. And this is what he seems to say: 20-23. With this view of the 
passage the verses that follow entirely coincide, and it removes all difficulty 
in the word “therefore,” with which they begin. Some commentators 
take no notice of this particle; others give it the meaning of nevertheless, 
yet ; others again, retaining the usual sense therefore, suppose it to relate 
to the 19th and previous verses. But, if “ the consumption” spoken of in 
vs. 22, 23, refer to the Assyrian overthrow, the connection of the discourse 
is self-evident, and the prophet’s language perfectly accurate. Having 
threatened to consume the Assyrian forces, God calls upon his people not 
to fear them. The chapter concludes by a graphical description of their 
rapid march towards Jerusalem, and of their sudden and unexpected de- 
struction. The mighty Oriental power is depicted under the figure of a noble 
forest exposed to the axe of the destroyer: ‘Behold the Lord, Jehovah of 
hosts, lops off the bough with a crash, and the lofty ones are cut down, and 
the haughty shall be humbled. And he will cut down the thickets of the 
forest, and that Lebanon shall fall :’ 24-34. 

In confirmation of this view of the passage in Isaiah, it may further be 
remarked that the words employed by the prophet seem to refer back to 
what he had before said respecting the destruction of the Assyrians. “ The 
consumption,” 7555, and “a consumption,” 755, in vs. 22, 23, are a repeti- 
tion of what had been stated in ver. 18, “he shall consume,” 7525. This 
shows the unity of subject throughout. ; 

If this view be correct, the inquiry arises, how does the Apostle apply 
the words of the prophet? ‘This question admits of two answers. It may 
be said that, as his leading thought is the salvation of the remnant, that is, 
the faithful Israelites, he introduces the words in ver. 28 merely on ac- 
count of their connection in Isaiah with the main statement; or, that lan- 
guage by which the prophet announces the destruction of the Assyrians the 
Apostle applies to the spiritual overthrow of the unbelieving Israelites. — 
In other words, he expresses his own thought in the prophet’s words. See 
remarks on quotations in the Commentary on Hebrews, pp. 26 et seq. 

30, 31. Olshausen seems to regard the whole of vs. 30, 31, as the ques- 
tion, and to make the answer follow “ wherefore,” dcaté, in ver. 32. In 
this case 67t would mean inasmuch as, since, as in John ii. 18 and ix. 17; 
and the sense would be thus: ‘ What shall we say then, since Gentiles &c., 
but Israel &c.? Wherefore is it thus? The reason follows in ver 32: 
‘Because’ &c. But the usual arrangement is preferable. What shall we 
say then? what conclusion shall we come to? The answer which imme- 


after righteousness, have attained 
to righteousness, even the right- 
31 eousness which is of faith. But 
Israel, which followed after the law 
of righteousness, hath not attained 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. XI. 





AaBe dSikacoobvnv, Stkavoobvnv 
d8 tiv éx mlatewe, lopanA*de dt- 31 
OKwv vipov Sikaroobvng el¢ vOmu- 
ov dtkaoobvyc ovk tpace. Ata 
ti; drt odk éx miaTewc, GAN’ we 32 


32 to the law of righteousness. Where- 


diately follows states the only legitimate one. Therefore, no exposition of 
the preceding portion of the chapter can possibly be the true one, which 
does not accord with and make prominent the thought so clearly announced 
by the Apostle, namely, that Gentiles have obtained what Israelites failed 
to secure, that is, justification. Here the scope of the writer is ascertained 
by his own express statement, and no rule of interpretation can possibly 
be more certain. 

In speaking of the Gentiles as not “ following after,” or aiming at, jus- 
tification, the Apostle does not mean to represent them as negligent and 
careless concerning acceptance with God, when this blessing was offered 
them. Undoubtedly those among them who “ attained unto justification,” 
had become interested in the Gospel ; and this is most expressly stated re- 
specting those who are mentioned in Acts xiii. 46-48. St. Paul refers to 
their former irreligious condition, when living without God in the world. 
And in the same way he describes them in x. 20, as those who had neither 
sought nor inquired after God. On the Gospel being made known to them, 
they embraced its offers and secured its benefits. But this was not the 
case with the Israelites. They followed véuov dixacoobyvne: literally, a law 
of justification, but according to an idiom, very common in Hebrew and 
also in other languages, a justifying law ; but they did not reach it. They 
clung tenaciously to an ideal system of their own, and therefore failed to 
secure the vainly hoped for benefit.* But such a system is chimerical, and 
cannot possibly, in the present condition of fallen human nature, have any 
real existence. In this way does St. Paul speak in Phil. iii. 9, of his “own 
justification which is of the law ;” meaning a hypothetical or ideal one, a 
justification which he once supposed himself to have secured, 

32, 33. The ellipsis to be supplied, is suggested by the preceding verse : 
‘they did not aim at it, seek it by.—‘Q¢: This particle, as employed here 
and in John i. 14, is thought by many able critics to be equivalent to the 
Hebrew caph, asseverating, or definitely marking out the thing or person 
intended to be expressed. See Neh. vii. 2, where the particle caph in the 


* After writing as above, I see that Tholuck has given, not only the same general view but even 
the same word. The reader will perhaps allow that the coincidence favours the exposition. After 
stating various views of earlier writers, (which I did not think it expedient to introduce,) such as a 
hypallage of law of justification for justification by law, and others of the same sort; he prefers ex- 
plaining law of justification “von einem idealem yorgostelltem Gesetz oder einer Norm, durch 
welche man Gerechtigkeit erlangen kann.” 


Cu. IX. 81-88.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 183 





&& tpywv vomov* mposéxoiav ydp fore? Because they sought it not 

33 TO AiI@ Tod TpOTKdpuaTOC, Ka- by faith, but as it were by the 

Sao yéyparrat: dob, tinue év works of the law: for they stum- 
bled at that stumbling-stone ; as it 33 


Hebrew ni38 Wy, is omitted in our translation, “ he was a faithful man,” 
whereas the true meaning is, ‘he was how faithful a man ;’ that is really 
so, one whose fidelity was indubitable. Thus the meaning will be 
equivalent to indeed, really. They sought it not of faith, but indeed of 
the works of the law. John i. 14 is cited in confirmation of the same 
meaning. In both cases, however, a slight ellipsis removes the difficulty, 
while the particle retains its ordinary signification. In St. John the 
meaning probably is, ‘such glory as belongs to the only begotten, and 
might be expected to be manifested by him;’ and here, ‘but (as I may 
well say,) by the deeds of the law.’ Comp. Phil. 14. 

The quotation is principally from Isa. xxviii. 16, although the Apostle 
introduces also certain words from other places, aliuding to Isa. viii. 14, 
and perhaps to Ps. exviii. 22. By the stone laid in Zion he means the 
Messiah ; and, while he thus figuratively represents him as the support of 
his church and of every individual member thereof, he suggests that he 
may become an occasion of injury and ruin to those who reject him. In 
exactly the same way does Isaiah speak of “the Lord of hosts” being “a 
sanctuary” for some, and “a stone of stumbling” &c. for others. Such a 
combination of the words of one or more passages of the Old Testament is 
not uncommon. See the remarks on quotations in the Commentary on 
Hebrews, p. 21, and the work of Surenhusius, before mentioned, Lib. ii. 
Thesis vii. pp.45-47. Although it be granted, which indeed is most prob- 
able, that in Isa, viii, 18, 14, the divine Messiah is the object referred to ; 
yet it will not follow that he is introduced as the speaker in vs. 16-18: a 
theory which seems to have originated in an endeavour to reconcile the 
language of the prophet with its application in Heb. ii. 18. In the 118th 
Psalm the rejected stone is immediately David, but ultimately Christ, In 
Isa. xxviii. 16, the “ foundation” is certainly the Messiah. This is allowed 
by Jarchi and some other Jewish authorities, although Aben Ezra and 
Dayid Kimchi explain it of Hezekiah. It is usual with the prophets to 
introduce the Messiah or to describe the blessings of his government 
and period in contrast with evils, political or moral or both, which pre- 
vailed in their own times; and therefore such a view of this passage 
harmonizes with their manner. In opposition to every deceitful pre- 
tended refuge and support, God himself represents the Messiah whom he 
is about to send as the true and solid foundation which shall never be 
shaken. He sustains all who trust him. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6. In this 
way the promise of Immanuel, the miraculously born Messiah, is made, in 


184 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. XI. 





is written, Behold, I layin Ziona wv Aidov mpookbupatog Kai 
stumbling-stone and rock of offence; 7étpav oxavdddAov, Kai mac 6 
and whosoever believeth on him ttoTejwv én’ ait@ ov KaTato- 
shall not be ashamed. yvvdjoera. 

X. Brethren, my heart’s desire and ’AdeApoi, 7 juev evdokia rig X. 
prayer to God for Israel is, that éuij¢ Kapdiag kat 7) dénotc 7 ™po¢ 


direct contrast to the irreligious and infidel rejection of a divine attestation 
by Ahaz. 

“ Stumbling-stone and rock of offence :” That is a stone or rock over 
or against which one may stumble, or dash himself. The expressions are 
figurative, like “ gin, snare, trap,” for whatever or whosoever may become 
the cause or occasion of injury. 

“Shall not be ashamed :” In the Old Testament it is, “ shall not make 
haste.” This is the usual meaning of the Hebrew word w-n, and the idea 
conveyed by it seems to be this: ‘shall not hurry away,’ as one would 
who had no confidence in the strength of his defence or what he had relied 
on. Thus it expresses the idea of permanent and steady trust, in opposi- 
tion to flight impelled by doubtfulness and fear. It is not surprising there- 
fore that in the Arabic the same verb is used in the three senses of to 
hasten, to fear, and to be ashamed, for in fact the ideas are naturally con- 
nected. ‘The last, which is that of the Septuagint, is followed by St. Paul, 
both here and in x. 11; the Chaldee and Syriac prefer the second; and the 
first is adopted in our English translation of the prophet. The conjecture. 
of Grotius, Hammond, and Bishop Lowth, that the Hebrew should be 
altered to w-2%, like most other such conjectures, is both unsupported and 
unnecessary. 

x. 1. “Israel :” The better reading is ‘them,’ adt@v. As this verse is 
the commencement of an ancient Jectionarium or Church lesson, the noun 
was probably substituted for the pronoun for the information of the con- 
gregation. We have a similar substitution in Acts iii. 11 of “the lame 
man who was healed” instead of ‘he.’ Sometimes these lectionaria con- 
tained introductory clauses preceding the words of Scripture, and perhaps 
this may have given rise to the admission of such clauses occasionally in 
the Gospel for the day in our Book of Common Prayer. See, for example, 
the Gospels for the fourth Sunday after Easter, for the sixth and ninth 
Sundays after Trinity, for St. Philip and St. James’ day, and that for All 
Saints’ day. In all these cases the introduction is quite unnecessary, to 
say the least, as no intelligent hearer can doubt that the speaker is Jesus.— 
“That they might be saved:” Literally, ‘for salvation.’ The meaning is, 
that they may be converted and enjoy the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom. 
Comp. xi. 26. 


2. “I bear them record :” The original word sometimes expresses sim-~ 


Cn. X. 1-3.] 


EPISTLE TO 


Tov Sedov b7é0 adTov [éoTLy] elc¢ 


THE ROMANS. 


they might be saved. For I bear 


2 owrnpiay, Maptup® yap adtoic, them record, that they have a zeal 
re CijAov Yeod Eyovaty, dAX’ od of God, but not according to know- 
3 Kat’ éxiyvwov. ’"Ayvoovvte¢yde ledge. For they, being ignorant of 


a ~ ~ rs XN 
THY Tov Yeov Jikatoobyny, Kat 
thy ldiav dixatoobyny CntodvTec 


God’s righteousness, and going 
about to establish their own right- 


185 


ply the idea of attesting, and sometimes the additional meaning of in 
opposition to, or in favour of. The last is here intended: ‘I willingly bear 
testimony in their favour.’ Thus the word is used in Luke iv. 22, Heb. xi. 
39, and often elsewhere.—“ Zeal of God :” Some regard this as a Hebraistic 
superlative for very great zeal, like mountains or cedars of God, that is 
very lofty ones. But the better meaning is ‘zeal fur God,’ as the genitive 
is often used. Comp. John ii. 17, “zeal of (for) thine house.” 

3. “Ignorant:” The ignorance of the Jews respecting the spiritual na- 
ture of Messiah’s kingdom was certainly a guilty ignorance, as they might 
and ought to have known better ; but still it is not to be doubted, that the 
Apostle here uses the expression as somewhat apologetic. This is evident 
from the connection. And thus St. Peter tells the Jews, that he knew they 
had crucified the Messiah, without being aware of what they were doing: 
Acts iii. 17. St. Paul also speaks of his own persecuting course of con- 
duct as carried on in ignorance: 1 Tim. i. 13, Acts xxvi.9. The guilt of 
such actions is not done away, although it is somewhat modified.—* God’s 
righteousness :” That is, God’s plan of justification in opposition to a fan- 
cied one of their own. 

4, “For” is illative and logically connected with what precedes. It is 
as if the Apostle had said, ‘ They are ignorant, for the law was not intended 
to justify.’—* The end :”” Some explain the word thus: ‘ Christ is the com- 
pletion, fulfilment of the law. In him it finds its full accomplishment. He 
kept it perfectly in all respects.’ This is true; but it is not the natural 
sense of the expressicn, nor is the meaning very well adapted to the con- 
nection. To say that Christ fulfilled the law is too general a truth to be 
here introduced. And to represent the Apostle as stating, that Christ’s 
actual fulfilling of the moral law is imputed or made over to the believer 
as the ground of his justification, is simply to assume a sense of the words 
which cannot be proved. According to others the Apostle merely says, 
that with Christ the law comes to its termination. He brings it to its end. 
This also is true, but the sense is not so important as the context seems to 
require. Besides, it may lead to a misapprehension of the true scriptural 
view of the doctrine of justification; and this misapprehension does, I 
think, appear in Koppe’s note. He gives the general idea of the verse 
thus: ‘the law having been abolished through Christ, we are all justified 
by faith; and refers to Gal. iii. 24. As the general scope of the Apostle’s 


186 





eousness, have not submitted them- 
selves unto the righteousness of 
God. For Christ¢s the end of the 
law for righteousness to every one 
that believeth. For Moses describ- 
eth the righteousness which is of 
the law, That the man which doeth 
those things shall live by them. 
But the righteousness which is of 
faith speaketh on this wise, Say not 
in thine heart, Who shall ascend 
into heaven? that is to bring 


COMMENTARY 





ON THE 


oTioal, Ty SiKaLocbvy TOD Beov 
ody wvmetdynoav. Téhoc ydp 
vouwov Xptaroc el¢ Stkacoobvnv 
mavTi TH TLoTEvOVTL. Mwivo7e 
yap ypdder tiv Stxacocbyny THV 
ék TOU vouovs bre 6 ToLhoac 
abTa dvdpwroc Cicerar év adv- 
toic. ‘H dé &é« miatewe diKato- 
avvn ovTw Aéyer* ui) Eimmyg EV 
Ti Kapdia cov: tic dvaBiae- 
tat el¢ Tov ovpavdy; TovT’ éa- 
Tt Xpiorov Katayayeiv* 7° Ti¢ 


(Seer. XI. 





representation in this and the next verses, he states as follows: ‘ While the 
authority of the Mosaic laws lasted, it was by a careful observance of them 
that men obtained salvation; but now, since the abrogation of those laws 
by Christ, the sole condition of salvation is this, to believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God sent from heaven to earth, and that he was raised 
from the dead.’ This view, which presumes that different ways of justifica- 
tion and acceptance with God have obtained under different dispensations 
and at different times, is directly at variance with the general tenour of 
Scripture, and particularly with the scope of this Epistle, which is intended 
to show that faith, and not observance of Jaws, has in all ages been the 
principle by which, to use the most expressive and appropriate language 
of Clement of Rome, “ Almighty God has always justified man from the 
beginning of the world.” Comp. iv. 3-8; also Heb. iv. 3, and the note 
there. 

There is still another view of the Apostle’s expression, which appears 
preferable to either ; though it is possible that the idea of putting an end 
to the law may also be comprehended. ‘Christ is the end or object or 
scope towards which the law tended.’ The whole Mosaic institution, 
ceremonial and moral, referred to him as the one and only source of justi- 
fication. It was intended to lead to him, and to prepare for his coming. 
See Gal. iii, 24. He has forever done away the law, so as to show that it 
neither was nor could be the means of a sinner’s justification. This can be 
obtained in no other way than by faith in Christ; and to him the law al- 
ways had reference. 

5. “The righteousness” or rather justification “which is of the law :” 
That is, a conceivable but merely ideal justification, as in ver. 3 and ix. 31. 
The quotation is from Levit. xviii. 5, St. Paul does not mean to say, that 
Moses intended to describe this justification when he wrote the words here 
quoted. They contain a promise of happiness to the sincere observer of 
God’s laws. But, inasmuch as they fitly express the principle of justifica- 


on. X. 4-10.] 


kataBnoerat ele THY aBvocor ; 
tour’ tote Xptotov ék vexpav 
dvayayetv. "AAAd ti Aéyer; 
éyyt¢ gov TO phd éotiv, év TO 
oréuatt cov Kai év TH Kapdia 
gov: Tov7’ éoTt TO prua TIC 
miotewc, O Kyptooomev* drt, 
éadv duodoyjoys év TO oTopmaTi 
gov Kboptov *Inoovy, Kat TLoTEt- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


Christ down from above: or, Who 
shall descend into the deep? that 
is, to bring up Christ again from 
the dead. But what saith it ? The 
word is nigh thee, even in thy 
mouth, and in thy heart: that is, 
the word of faith which we preach; 
that if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 


187 


believe in thine heart that God 
hath raised him from the dead, 
thou shalt be saved. For with the 10 ~ 


b] ~ 4 cg e MS 
ong €v TH Kapdia cov, dtt 6 Seoc 
avrov 7HyELpEV EK VEKPOV, OWI}. 

10 Kapdia yao meotev_erat eic dtKat- 


tion by law, the Apostle introduces his own thought in this most appro- 
priate language of the Hebrew lawgiver. See the remarks on quotations 
in the Commentary on Hebrews, p. 27. 

6-9. The principle just stated in illustration of the quotation from Le- 
viticus, applies also to those here made from Deut. xxx. 12-14, with which 
St. Paul interweaves his own-illustrations. The justification of faith is 
personified and made to speak in the words of the address of Moses to the 
Israelites, when he endeavours to induce them to obey the law of God, 
because, instead of being attended by any particular. difficulty, it is com- 
paratively easy. As the descending into the deep, or abyss, is set in con- 
trast to the ascending into heaven and explained by bringing up Christ 
from the dead, it hardly admits of a reasonable doubt that the word abvacov 
is here used to denote the place of the dead. In Deuteronomy the language 
is “who shall go over the sea;”’ but St. Paul merely gives the general 
thought in the Pentateuch without confining himself to the very words. 
In Ps. evii. (Sept. evi.) 26, “ mounting up to the heaven” and “ going down 
to the depths,” are expressions employed to describe poetically the vessel 
rising on the lofty wave and sinking into the trough of the sea, and 
the two extremes are marked in the Septuagint by the words odpavav 
and d6toowyv, just as heaven and hades are contrasted in Matt. xi. 25 and 
elsewhere. 

“ That is,” vs. 6,7,8: lrefer the reader who may wish to see the va- 
rious views of commentators on this phrase, and its supposed connection 
both with the words of the Apostle and Moses, to Tholuck’s note. It 
seems to be merely exegetical of the Apostle’s application of the words 
quoted, and equivalent to, ‘as if Christ were to be brought down or up.’-— 
The expressions here used, of going up to heaven, or down to the abyss, 
or over the sea, all convey the same general idea, namely, that of extreme 
difficulty. Thus in Prov. xxx. 3, 4, we read: “I neither learned wisdom, 
nor have the knowledge, of the holy. Who hath ascended up into heaven 


188 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. XI. 


heart man believeth unto right- oobdvqv, ordmaTe dE Omodoyetrat 
eousness; and with the mouthcon- el¢ owrtnpiav. <Aéyet yap #11 
11 fession is made unto salvation. For ypady* mac 6 maTebwy én’ 
the Scripture saith, Whosoever be- a@dT@ od katatoyvvdjcera. Ov 12 
lieveth on him shall not be ashamed. ydp éortt dtaoroA7) *lovdaiov Te 


or descended ? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound 
the waters in a garment? who hath established, all the ends of the earth ? 
what is his name and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” The 
meaning is evident, these things are extremely difficult; they require a 
superhuman power. And so inthe Apocryphal book of Baruch, iii, 29-31, 
speaking of wisdom the author says: “ Who hath gone up to heaven, 
and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone 
over the sea, and found her, and will bring her for pure gold? No man 
knoweth her way, nor thinketh of her path.” It is plain that in the pas- 
sage quoted Moses does not refer to the particular points discussed by the 
Apostle. He is persuading the Hebrews to obey the divine law. It does 
not involve anything of special difficulty, as if the heavens were to be sealed, 
or the broad and stormy sea, with its mountain billows and deep watery 
chasms, to be passed over. It is comparatively easy and within the reach 
of moderate effort. Employing the same language, and adapting it to his 
purpose, St. Paul expresses thereby this thought, that the blessings of the 
Gospel scheme of justification were also attainable on the very facile con- 
dition of faith, which was within the power of every sincere and earnest 
seeker after salvation. “In thy mouth and in thy heart” are strong figu- 
rative expressions, intimating that the benefit is so easily obtained that it 
may be said to be even in possession, and ready to be enjoyed and rightly 
appreciated. 

Tholuck, after examining the various methods employed to show that 
Moses predicts or implies the very point intended by St. Paul, comes to 
the conclusion that the Apostle expresses his own idea, partly in the Jan- 
guage of Deuteronomy. To the same purpose Vatablus, in the Critici 
Sacri. ‘He does not here quote Moses, because he does not follow the 
sense of Moses, but only borrows some expressions from him.” 

The Apostle proceeds to make his application of the language of Moses, 
“The word :” That is, the subject matter which the expressed word de- 
scribes. This, which is so readily attainable, is faith in the Gospel, the 
fundamental principles of which must be cordially believed and publicly 
professed. The confession of the Lord Jesus, like the Master’s own lan- 
guage in Matt. x. 32, implies the open avowal of faith in and attachment 
to him, notwithstanding the difficulties and persecutions to which such a 
course may subject the confessor. The resurrection of Christ from the 
dead is here put by a synecdoche for the whole system of Christianity, 


Cu. X. 11-14.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 189 


kal “EAAnvog: 6 yde avto¢ Kv- For there is no difference between 12 
plog madvtTwy tAovT@Y ei¢ mav- the Jew and the Greek: for the 
tac Tod¢ émikadovpévove avtov. same Lord over all is rich unto all 
18 Ila yde, d¢ dv éxtxadéonrat TO that call upon him. For whoso- 13 
14 dvoua Kupiov, owSjoerat. IlG¢ ever shall call upon the name of 


which stands or falls with this most fundamental principle. The 10th verse 
contains the simple but all-important statements, that justifying faith must 
be sincere, and available confession open and public notwithstanding all 
dangers. 

11. “For:” This refers to what had been before said, namely, the facil- 
ity with which the blessings of the Gospel might be obtained on the con- 
dition of faith, inasmuch as they are not exclusively confined to any class, 
having been promised to the believer, or, as the Apostle says, to every 
believer. See Isa. xxviii. 16, and similar places.—‘ Whosoever :” more 
accurately ‘every one who,’ 7a@¢ 6 or 6¢. The adjective, which is not ex- 
pressed either in' the Hebrew or Septuagint, although necessarily implied, 
is probably added by the Apostle, to make the meaning the more definite. 
— Believeth on,” ézé: This intimates that he who exercises such a faith, 
so trusts in its object as to make that his support and dependence. It 
shows that a justifying faith is not merely an assent of the understanding 
to all the truths of the Christian religion, but also a trust of the whole in- 
ner man on Christ and his system for acceptance and ultimate salvation. 
It is the germ of the divine life, which unites the soul to God and the Re- 
deemer, and thereby develops itself in the well formed Christian character. 

12,13. “The Jew and the Greek,” or Gentile, Heathen; as the word 
Greek frequently means.—‘‘ The same Lord over all is rich unto all that 
call upon him.” The epithet “rich” implies the fulness of his blessings, 
and also the free and abundant manner in which he dispenses them. 
—“Call upon :” That is, pray to, as in 2 Tim. ii. 22, “them that call on 
the Lord.” The description is entirely appropriate, whether applied to 
God or Christ. But from the words that follow it is probable that “the 
same Lord” refers to Christ. They harmonize with the usage in the Acts. 
See ix. 14, 17, where “calligg upon the name of the Lord” is equivalent 
to invoking Christ. In 1 Cor. i. 2, also, Christians are distinguished by 
the appellation, those “that call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” 
The verses that follow confirm this view, as Christ is evidently he who is to 
be preached and heard and believed in, and consequently called on. The 
quotation in ver. 13 is from Joel ii, 32, (in the Heb. iii. 5,) and in immediate 
connection with the promise of the abundance and extraordinary effusion 
of the Spirit, which was verified at the first Christian Pentecost.— With 
the expression “ The same Lord over all,” compare the very similar one of 
St. Peter, “he is Lord of all,” employed directly of Christ in Ac‘s x. 36, 


190 COMMENTARY ON ‘THE (Seer. XI. 


14 the Lord shall be saved. How then ov Ry ae ele bv ovK 
shall they call on him in whom they émiorevoay ; TH¢ dE TLOTebOOV- 
have not believed? and how shall atv, ob odK Fxovaar ; tH 68 dKob- 
they believe in him of whom they ovat ywpi¢ Knptooovrog, mac 15 
have not heard? and how shall dé kypbgovawy, édv ji) dnooTaAe- 

15 they hear withouta preacher? and ot; Kad@¢ yéypaTtTaL* Oc @pator 
how shall they preach, except they ol réde¢ TOV EvayyeAComéver el- 


14 et seq. Several commentators, among whom is Professor Stuart, 
consider this as an objection, either urged by a Jew or stated by the au- 
thor, which is answered in ver. 16, “The objector apologises for his un- 
believing countrymen, that many of them had not heard the Gospel 
proclaimed. The Apostle answers that many who had heard it did not 
believe-it. To this the Jew replies, that the quotation itself implies that 
men must hear the Gospel before they can believe it.” The 17th verse 
is also regarded as “the suggestion of the objector, who means to insist by 
it that many of the Jews are not culpable for unbelief, inasmuch as they 
have not heard the Gospel, and hearing is necessary to believing.” In the 
18th the answer is that they have heard, 

This theory of direct objection and answer seems both unnecessary and 
improbable. That the Jew would state or the Apostle allege such an ob- 
jection is not very likely ; because it admits that if the Jew on hearing the 
Gospel had rejected it, he would be guilty. But this is a postulate, which 
of course, he would not allow, and the Apostle could not assume. And 
without supposing any such formal objection and answer, the series of re- 
mark is still simple and natural. 

Some interpreters suppose that St. Paul has the heathen only in view 
in vs. 14-18, and that in 19 there is a transition to the Jews or Israelites. 
Tholuck thinks that the Apostle terminates with ver. 13 the course of 
thought begun at ver. 4, and then returns to that in vs. 1-3, intending to show 
that the opportunity of believing had not been withheld from the Jews. 
He remarks that although in ver. 13 the word 7a@¢, every one, may be em- 
ployed to show that the heathen are not excluded, yet those that follow, 
referring to the comprehensiveness of the e€pression, may include both, 
having a special reference however to the Jews.. He does not consider the 
words ‘not all” in ver, 16, as relating to individuals among heathen and 
Jews, but rather to the latter as a body, at least to them principally in con- 
tradistinction to the mass of heathen. If it should be thought strange that, 
after what has been said in vs, 15, 16, the question should be raised in ver, 
18, “ have they not heard ?” he considers the difficulty as removed by sup- 
posing it to be emphatic, declaring that they 0 heard most abundantly 
and fully. 

“Sent :” Either by Christ or God or both conjointly, for in this mission 


On. X. 14-18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 191 








onvnY, TOV Evayyedtcouévwr TA be sent? as itis written, How beau- 

16 dyadd. ’AAN ov TdévTeg i77- tiful are the fect of them that 
kovoay 7@ evayyediw. ‘Hoaiag preach the gospel of peace, and 
yao Aéyer* Kvpte, tic Exiotevoe bring glad tidings of good things! 

17 TH dKkoy jua@y ; "Apa 7 Tiotig €& But they have not all obeyed the 16 
dko7jc, 1) 08 akon dia Phuatoc gospel: for Esaias saith, Lord, 

18 Beod. "AAAG Aéyw° py OK who hath believed our report? So 17 


the Holy Trinity with the Messiah co-operate. Such sending implies both 
an internal call by the Spirit, and an external commission by legitimate 
ecclesiastical authority. Although the Prophet is describing poetically the 
delight with which the messengers who announce the return from the. Bab- 
ylonian captivity are received ; yet he has also in view the heralds of the 
Gospel proclaiming to men its “ glad tidings of great joy.” The passage, 
which is from Isa. lii. 7, is not accommodated, but cited in accordance 
with the ultimate meaning of the prophetic word. See Discourses on 
Prophecy, the 5th, pp. 86, 87, and Note xvii. 

In ver. 16 the quotation from Isa. liii. 1, is applied principally to Jewish 
unbelief. “ Report,” dof That is, the thing heard, the message. If 
this meaning of the same word be retained in ver. 17, where our transla- 
tion renders it “ hearing,” then “the word of God” will denote the divine 
command. ‘The different shade of meaning expressed by our translation 
arises quite naturally from the verb ¢o hear before used. If this translation 
be preferred, the sense will be that faith follows the hearing of the pro- 
claimed word or message. 

18. “‘ Their sound went into all the earth” &e. Thisis a quotation from 
Ps. xviii. 5, in the Septuagint, with the words of which it agrees accurately. 
The English notation is xix. 4. The former portion of the Psalm in which 
this occurs relates to God’s glory in the work of creation ; the latter, to 
the excellence of his revealed word. The Psalmist speaks of the divine 
works, especially the heavenly bodies, as proclaiming to the universe the 
majesty and power of their almighty framer and director ; and the Apostle 
quotes them, as admirably suited to express the universal proclamation of 
the Gospel as a new and heavenly creation, a re-making of the moral chaos, 
and a forming of its discordant materials into one united, harmonious whole, 
to the honour of its “ great original.” —“ Their sound” &c. The Hebrew 
has 4p, “‘ dine,” the Septuagint P06yyoc, “ sownd,” which is followed by the 
Vulgate “sonus.” The former may express simply the idea of extension, 
which is denoted by the very meaning of the word, and in the author’s 
mind it may be carried out indefinitely ; and the latter may be a declara- 
tion to the same effect in the language of the poets, who speak of the 
harmonious movements of the heavenly bodies, or the divine harmony of 
the celestial spheres. In either case, the general thought is the same. 


192 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. XI. 





then faith cometh by hearing, and  jjkovoav ; pevovvye el¢ maoav 
18 hearing by the word of God. But tiv yiv esjAdev 6 pddyyoc¢ 
I say, Have they not heard? Yes a@v7T@v, kai el¢ Ta Tépata TIC 
verily, their sound went intoall the olkovpévyg td piuata adTov. 
earth, and their words unto the "AAAd Aéyw- 17) “lopa7jA ove 19 
19 ends of the world. But I say, Did @yv@; mp@to¢ Mwionce Aéyet- 
not Israel know? First Moses ¢y@ TapagnA@ow ijac én’ ovK 
saith, I will provoke youto jealousy é@0veu, éxi &9ver dovvét@ Tapop- 
by them that are no people, and by yt buac. ‘Hoaiac dé drotoAua 20 
a foolish nation I will anger you. Kal Aéyet* ebpédqv Toic éue fui) 
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, 


The course of remark from ver. 13 is as follows: ‘Since the divine 
promise shows that every one who regards Christ as his Redeemer and thus 
invokes him shall be saved, it follows that faith in him as such is absolutely 
necessary. Of course he must be heard of, and therefore proclaimed by 
divinely sent messengers, who, as the prophet says, will be joyously re- 
ceived. It is true that the Jews in general, and multitudes also of the 
heathen, have not obeyed the Gospel ; but this might have been expected, 
and was indeed predicted by Isaiah, whose very language intimates that the 
Gospel must be proclaimed and heard in order to be believed. And I say 
that it has been so proclaimed most extensively, just as God’s being and 
attributes have been proclaimed to mankind from the creation of the 
world,’ 

19-21. “ Did not Israel know? As genius is proverbially inventive, 
two critics, making the word Israel accusative and imagining God to be 
the subject of the verb, translate thus: “does God then no longer know 
(that is, love) Israel?” See Olshausen in loc., who very justly remarks, 
that this idea is not brought forward until xi. 1—Several interpreters un- 
derstand the question thus: ‘did not Israel know the Gospel?’ was it not 
made known to them? But this would be a vapid repetition of what had 
been said before; and, moreover, the reply which immediately follows 
would have no bearing on such an inquiry. The connection in which it 
stands and the answer made to it sufficiently show that it relates to the 
calling of the Gentiles and their admission into the Christian church. Did 
not the Israclitish nation know that such was God’s purpose? They did ; 
that is to say, they had in their own Scriptures abundant evidence of this in- 
tention. Compare “ when they knew” ini. 21 and “seeing” and “ hearing” 
in Matt. xiii. 13. The Apostle begins by citing the testimony of Moses; 
after which he limits himself to one passage in Isaiah, although he might 
have quoted many from the same prophet, and also from other Old Testa- 
ment writers, The language of Moses in Deut, xxxii. 21, expresses God’s 
indignation at the Israelites on account of their idolatries, and implies his. 


. 


Cu. X. 18-XI. 2.] EPISTLE TO 
Enrovary, gupavag éyevounv Toi¢ 
21 éué jun) Exepwr@or. II po¢ dé Tov 
lopana Aéyer* Any Tijv tuépav 
éterétaca Ta¢ YElpac pov TpdC 
Aadv drewovvTa Kat dvriré- 
yovra. 
XI. Aéyw ovv: . pj) ardoato 6 
Sedo Tov Aady adTov; pA yé- 
volto’ Kat yap éy® "lopandAitne 
eiui, x oTépuatoc "ABpadu, pv- 
2 Arc Bevapiv. OvK dma@oato 6 
Sede Tov Aadyv avTov, bv Tpo- 
éybw* 7 ovk oldate, év "HAta 
ti Aéyee  ypadhn; w¢ evtvy- 


THE ROMANS. 193 
I was found of them that sought 
me not; I was made manifest unto 
them that asked not after me. But 21 
to Israel he saith, All day long I 
have stretched forth my hands 
unto a disobedient and gainsaying 
people. 

I say then, Hath God cast away XI. 
his people ? God forbid. For I also 
am an Israelite, of the seed of 
Abraham, of’ the tribe of Benjamin. 
God hath not cast away his people 2 
which he foreknew. Wot ye not 
what the Scripture saith of Elias ? 
how he maketh intercession to God 


intention to deprive them of their peculiar and covenant blessings, which 
he would bestow upon the Gentiles, whom they contemptuously regarded 
as weak and silly, and unworthy even ofthe name of apeople. The indig- 
nation or jealousy or emulation which would consequently be excited, is 
directly stated as a result of this transfer of privileges from the Israelites 
to the Gentiles.—The quotation from Isaiah Ixv. 1, 2, is plain and directly 
to the point. The Gentiles are represented as those who had “ not sought ” 
or “asked after” God. This refers to the condition of ignorance and indif- 
ference into which they had sunk before the Gospel was proclaimed to 
them. See ix. 30, and note. The next verse declares the disobedient and 
obstinate character of the Israelites, and the earnest though fruitless efforts 
of untiring goodness to reclaim them. 

xi. Having shown why the Jews in general were excluded from the 
kingdom of the Messiah, St. Paul now proceeds to console those of his na- 
tion who had embraced the faith of Jesus, under the affliction which a con- 
sideration of the lamentable state of their countrymen must have produced; 
and to discourage in the Gentile converts any disposition to inordinate self- 
complacency, and any tendency to treat the Jews with contempt on account 
of their own spiritual superiority. He states that in fact many Jews had 
become converts to Christianity ; that the unbelief of those who remained 
obstinately prejudiced against the truth, had been made conducive to the 
welfare of the Gentiles ; and lastly, he speaks as if he confidently expected 
the coming of a period when the Jews as a nation would acknowledge Jesus 
as the true Messiah and accept his Gospel. F 

1-4, “ Hath God cast away his people?” Is this a legitimate conclu- 
sion from what has been before said respecting the rejection of unbe- 
lieving Jews, and the substitution of converted Gentiles? It is not. The: 
Apostle solemnly denies it, and proceeds to sustain his denial. In order 

13 


194 . COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. XI. 





3 against Israel, saying, Lord, they xdvet TO VEO Kata Tow "Tapa: 
have killed thy prophets, and dig- Kvpte, Tod¢ Tpowfrac cov anék- 3 
ged down thine altars,and I am Tecvay kal Ta Yvovacripid ov 


rightly to understand the purport of the question, it becomes necessary to 
settle the meaning of the phrase “his people.” This cannot possibly be 
limited to that portion of the Hebrews who had received the Gospel. It 
denotes the nation as a whole, as the word is used in the immediately 
preceding verse. This is the usual sense of the phrase, and it is often em- 
ployed in connection with the most affectionate expressions of regret on 
account of their perverseness and wickedness, and the severest denuncia- 
tions of wrath. See, among a multitude of instances of the same phrase, Ps. 
xiv. 7, liii. 6, xciv. 14, Isa. xxx. 26, Joel ii. 18, Mic. vi. 2, Luke i. 68, vii. 16. 
The words “ my people” often occur in the same general meaning. See, 
for a few examples, Isa. i. 3, lii. 4, 5,6, and Mic. vi. 3,5. Usage then sus- 
tains the general meaning. And the context admits of none other. It is not 
uncommon, indeed, to explain the verses which immediately follow in such a 
way as to agree with and even sustain the limited meaning ; as if the Apos- 
tle had intended to allege the fact of being an Israelite himself as a proof 
that God had not rejected the nation. But this is a very frigid sense, and 
quite unworthy of such a writer. Who that properly estimates his charac- 
ter or works can suppose that he would undertake to show, that God had 
not rejected that portion of his ancient people whom he had admitted to 
the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom? or that, if he thought it worth while 
to prove such a self-evident proposition, that he would choose to do so 
by adducing himself as the evidence? This is not in character with so 
logical a head, or sohumble a heart. Not in such manner, or by such help, 
may we look for the support of truth by Paut. He does not mean to say, 
‘God hath not rejected all his people, for I myself am a Christian of Israel- 
itish descent.’ According to this view, there is no point in the latter half 
of the verse. Why does he particularize? “Iam,” says he, “an Israelite :” 
He selects the most honourable appellation. ‘ Of the posterity of Abra- 
ham :” He recals to the mind of his readers the venerated patriarch, “the 
pillar” of the nation, as Maimonides denominates him. “ Of the tribe of 
Benjamin :” The least yet most esteemed of all, who had allied them- 
selves to the tribe of Judah, and had not rejected the divinely established 
government of “the house of David,” the softly flowing waters of Siloah : 
Isa. viii. 6. Had he merely intended to show that the whole of God’s an- 
cient people had not been cast away by alleging himself as an example, it 
would haye been enough to say, ‘J claim that I myself have not been re- 
jected.’ Undoubtedly he employs these expressions under the influence of 
a very different feeling. They all imply a depth of love for his nation, a 
love which could not possibly bear the thought of their final and irrecover. 


or 


Cu. XI. 8, 4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 19 





katéoxayayv: Kaya breXeib9yyv eft alone, and they seck my life. 
jovoc, Kat Snrovor tv wWvyjv But what saith the answer of God 4 
4 uov. “Adda ti Aéyet ad7TG 6 untohim? I have reserved to my- 


able rejection. He means to tell them, that as an Israelite, a son of Abra- 
ham, one of the little yet honoured tribe of Benjamin, it is the farthest 
from his thoughts, to represent his beloved nation as thus rejected by God, 
who had so highly regarded and honoured them. 

The Apostle then proceeds to illustrate what he had said by referring to 
the case of Elijah and the condition of the Israelites in the time of that 
prophet. His illustration has been supposed to confirm the limited mean- 
ing of the words “his people.” But this arises from a mistaken view of 
its scope and intention. The prophet, depressed by melancholy apprehen- 
sion, supposes himself to be the only true worshipper of Jehovah left among 
the multitudes of Hebrews. But the divine communication consoles him 
with the assurance that, notwithstanding the wretchedly degenerate condi- 
tion of the chosen people, God has still seven thousand sincere worshippers. 
These faithful adherents have been supposed to correspond with the “ peo- 
ple” whom the Apostle says “ God hath not rejected ;” and the analogy has 
been thought to run thus: As in the time of Elijah God had his seven thou- 
sand devoted servants who were even then his chosen people ; so the Jews 
who have received Jesus as the Messiah are now his people, and these he 
hath not rejected. But this isnot the point of comparison. Rather, in accord- 
ance with the analogy of God’s dealings as exhibited in Scripture, it runs 
thus: As, in the degenerate days of the prophet, the seven thousand faithful, 
the holy “remnant,” preserved the true religion, and thus prevented the 
divine vengeance from exterminating the whole nation ; so now, those holy 
and faithful Israelites who have embraced the Gospel, preserve their faithless 
brethren from utter and final abandonment by God. The “little leaven 
leaveneth the whole lump.” The holy few preserve, in a degree, the mul- 
titude ; the devoted portion consecrates, in a sense, the whole mass. 

The correctness of this view is sustained also by what follows. The 
introductory words of ver. 11 evidently refer to those of ver. 1, the subject 
of which is certainly in the Apostle’s mind. The falling corresponds with 
the casting off, and both are denied in the same emphatic terms. Yet it is 
unquestioned that the stumbling and the falling relate to the nation; and 
indeed the subsequent verses place this beyond all doubt. The same con- 
clusion follows from ver. 16, where “ the lump” or mass, and “the branches,” 
both of which are said to be “holy,” correspond with the body of the 
nation. And what is stated in vs. 28, 29, settles the true interpretation of 
the phrase under consideration. ‘As respects the Gospel, they are enemies 
to God; but as respects God’s choice of the nation to be his covenant peo- 
ple, they are beloved on account of their fathers: for God’s gracicus gifts 


196 COMMENTARY ON THE [Szer, XI. 


—_—. 


self seven thousand men, who have xpyjeaTionoc ; KatéAuTIOv EuavT@ 
not bowed the knee to the image of émtaktoytAiovg dvdpac, oittvec 
5 Baal. Even so then at this pres- ov« ékampav yovv ty Baad. 


and the benefits of that state into which he calls and places, are matters in 
relation to which he does not change his mind.’ This is true, although 
multitudes who have been placed in that state may forfeit its blessings 
through neglect and sin. 

The conclusion therefore is, that the Apostle regards the mass of the 
Israelites as still, notwithstanding their infidelity and opposition to Christi- 
anity, as in a modified sense God’s people, although, in another respect, he 
represents them as not being his people. This view is, moreover, in 
accordance with certain prophecies, and especially with that symbolical 
prediction in Hos. iii. It harmonizes with the remarkable fact, that Provi- 
dence has preserved the Jews as a people, though not properly as a political 
nation distinguished from others; it sanctions the expectation, evidently 
cherished by the Apostle and in accordance with what had been predicted, 
of their future conversion ; and it ought to excite, animate, and encourage 
Christians to adopt the most efficacious measures in order to accomplish a 
consummation so earnestly and devoutly to be wished. 

“Whom he foreknew:” See the note on viii. 29, p. 150.—* Wot: ass 
That is, know. The word is-of Saxon origin, and is employed in the older 
English versions both here and elsewhere. It occurs also in the authorised 
in 2 Cor. viii. 1, “do you to wit,” for ‘inform you; and in Phil. i. 22, 
“J wot not.” These are the only instances in which it is employed as-the 
translation of yywpigw, although the Greek word occurs 24 times.’ In Acts 
iii, 17, the original of “I wot,” is olda.—The quotation is from 1 Kings 
xix. 10, 18,—‘ Of Elias:” The Greek is év "HAia. The preposition may 
be rendered of or concerning as the Hebrew beth often means. Thus David 
Kimchi on Isa. xi. 4, 5, uses it: “ Concerning the Messiah—concerning the 
righteous.” And, although the passage is not cited so much in reference to 
the prophet as to the seven thousand faithful Israelites ; yet, as he was the 
most distinguished person, to whom the divine oracle had been communicated, 
the language may well be said to respect him. Still, itis very probable that 
the best translation is in, and that the Apostle adopts a method of quoting 
very common with the Rabbies. Thus they say, it is written in the crea- 
tion, meaning Gen. i.; in the concubine, referring to the story of the Levite 
mentioned in Judg. xix. ; in Gabriel, that is, Dan. ix. 21 et seq.; and so, in 
Moses and in David.* In the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, chap. xii., we 
have perhaps an instance of this mode of reference: 7 tapdGBaotc bid Tov 
bpewe év Eda yéyove, the transgression took place by means of the serpent 


* See Surenhusius ubi sup., Thesis 49, p. 831; and Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament, 
Vol. L. Part I. Chap, iv. Sect. v. pp. 133, 134, Edit. Lond. 1828. 


Cx. XI. 5, 6.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 197 


5 Odtwe ody kai év TO viv Kap ent time also there is a remnant ac- 
Asippa Kar’ éxAoyijy xdptto¢ cording to the election of grace. 
6 yéyovev. El d& yadpitt, ovxéte And if by grace, then is it nomore 6 


in Eve. Thus St. Paul may say ‘in Elijah,” meaning, in that part of Scrip- 
ture which relates his history. The Vulgate has, in Elia, and is followed 
by Wiclif and the Rheims translation. Some commentators trace the same 
method of quotation in Mark xii. 26, where they translate “in the bush.” 
This is our authorised version, and it coincides with Tyndale, Cranmer, 
Geneva and Rheims. Wiclif has, “the book of Moises on the buysch,” 
meaning probably that part of the Pentateuch which relates to the bush and 
the occurrence there. The other translations may very fairly be under- 
stood to mean that God spoke in the bush. Besides, the preposition, which 
is émt, is better rendered at, and connected with the words that follow, 
“God spake unto him.”—T7 BaaA. The use of the feminine article has 
led several critics to suppose an ellipsis of eixéve, image, and to construe 
Bdad in the genitive, thus; ‘to the image of Baal.’ But, as Tholuck re- 
marks, in this case we would expect the article before the genitive. The 
expedient is also quite unnecessary, as Baal is both masculine and feminine. 
The latter form occurs in Hos, ii. 8, and Zeph. i. 4, Sept. Although in the 
place cited the Septuagint has the former, yet St. Paul, quoting from 
memory, uses the gender most familiar, or which first occurs to him. 
Whether the Phenician and Syrian idolaters united both sexes in Baal, or 
held the notion of a male and a female Baal, is uncertain. The idea of 
Gesenius, which Tholuck regards as on the whole the most probable, is, 
that the feminine gender had been substituted for the masculine, from dis- 
respect to the pretended deity. Thus the Rabbies speak of heathen gods 
in the feminine, and passages to the same effect are found in the Koran. 
It is also quite probable that the Jews altered Beelzebub, the lord of flies, 
into Beelzebul, the dung-lord, through contempt. See Robinson on the 
word. 

5. “A remnant according to the election of grace :” That is, a portion 
of the whole people who have embraced the Gospel through God’s gra- 
cious choice. The language has a retrospective reference to ix. 27 and 11, 
where see the notes. 

6. The latter half of this verse, which Hahn has introduced in brackets, 
is by many regarded as a gloss, and stricken out of the text. It is cer- 
tain that several and very important aucient authorities reject the words ; 
and yet, on the other hand, the Vatican manuscript and the Syriac version 
retain them. It has been thought that a marginal gloss would have been 
constructed more in accordance with the form of the preceding clause ; but 
this remark would apply as well to the supposition of its originality. It 
does not indeed add any idea not already contained in the former half; 


198 


of works; otherwise grace is no 
more grace. But if it be of works, 
then is it no more grace ; otherwise 
work is no more work. What 
then? Israel hath not obtained 
that which he seeketh for, but the 
election hath obtained it, and the 
rest were blinded ; according as it 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


&& loywy, eet 7) ydpic ov«K- 
éte yiverar yxdouc. [el db b 
Epywy, ovKéte éoti yapic, érret 
TO épyov odkéte éariv bpyov.]| 
Ti obv; 6 émignret "lopand, rovTo 
ovK érrétvyev, 7) OE ExAoyn éré- 
tuyev’ ob d& oitol ErwpOdn- 
cay, Kadac yéypanta: idwKev 


(Seer. XI. 


still, the Apostle may repeat that idea in another form for the sake of em- 
phasis. It is difficult to decide the question of its genuineness; but the 
weight of external evidence seems to be against it. The sentiment in the 
verse may be thus expressed: ‘The preservation of a remnant of Jews 
who embrace the Gospel and are retained as God’s elect people, results 
from the divine choice and favour, and not from human effort or merit; 
and were this not the case, favour would not be favour, [and the distinction 
between favour and merit be lost.]’ 

7. “ What then?” What has been the issue? It is what the author 
had before stated in ix. 31 and x. 3, with this difference, that there he con- 
trasts the failure of the mass of the Jews with the success of the Gentile 
converts, while here the contrast lies between the former and that portion 
of their brethren who had embraced the Gospel. These are called “ the 
election.” This is simply the abstract for the concrete ‘the elect,’ and the 
connection shows that it is limited to Jewish converts. The remainder of 
the people have been suffered to continue blind, Their sin has become 
judicially their punishment. 

8-10. The Apostle now quotes passages from the Old Testament, 
showing that the threat of such judicial punishment had been denounced 
by God against obstinate and impenitent offenders. The places referred 
to are principally the following, though there is an allusion to and even a 
selection of words from others of similar import. Isa. xxix. 10, vi. 10, 
Deut. xxix. 4, Ps, Ixix. 22, 23.—In ver. 9 the el¢ is Hebraistic, and the 
accusative nouns with the prepositions are equivalent to the nominative 
without. The general meaning of this verse and the next is as follows: 
‘Let the blessings which they enjoy be converted into occasions of injury, 
and thus become divine punishments, and a recompense for their sinful 
conduct.’ God’s retributive justice is recognised in this penal infliction, 
which is consequently represented as brought on these persons by him.— 
The clause “unto this day,” is separated by some editors from the imme- 
diately preceding words, and connected with the 7th verse, all the 8th 
except three words being parenthetical; and Koppe regards them as being 
added by St. Paul in order to accommodate the language to his own times, 
But such an arrangement is both unnecessary and improbable. The very 


Cu. XI. 7-9.] 


avtoic 6 Sede TvEtua KaTtavié- 
ewe, 6PYaApwove TOD ju7 BAETELY 
kal Ota Tov fu7) dKovew, Ewe THC 
onepov mépac. Kai Aavid 
Aéyet* yerndntw i) Tpdtesa av- 
tov ei¢ tayida Kai ei¢ Sipav 
kat sic okdvdadov Kai ei¢ advta- 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


is written, God hath given them 
the spirit of slumber, eyes that 
they should not see, and ears that 
they should not hear, unto this day. 
And David saith, Let their table be 
made a snare, and a trap, and a 
stumbling-block and a recompense 


199 


words are found in the text of Deuteronomy, and the expression is a very 
usual one in the historical books of the Old Testament. See Gen. xlviii. 15, 
Deut. xxxiy. 6, Josh. iv. 9, xxii. 17, xxiii. 8, 2 Sam. iv. 3, 1 Kings viii. 8, 2 
Kings xvii. 34, 2 Chron. v.9. Besides, this construction separates the con- 
tents of the 8th verse from those of the 9th and 10th, although the general 
thought is identically the same; and this is unnatural. It is probable that, 
in quoting the words from Deuteronomy, the Apostle may have intended 
to apply them to his own time, as he says in 2 Cor. iii. 15, “even unto this 
day, when Moses is read the vail is upon their heart.” But they must not 
be separated from the preceding part of the quotation.—‘ Spirit of slum- 
ber :” This does not refer to any spirit, whether good or bad, commissioned 
by God to produce spiritual sleep. Even if the form of expression had its 
origin in the idea of God’s Holy Spirit producing a religious state of the 
inner man, and of unholy spirits influencing the soul to evil; still, the 
result, the condition, is all that is intended, and the phrase may be pleonas- 
tic, expressive merely of deep sleep, and denoting a state of apathy, total 
and sinful apathy. Tholuck prefers explaining the word ‘spirit’ as equiv- 
alent to effective power, Kraft. And this seems to agree with the use of the 
word ‘spirit? in some other places. Comp. Isa. xi. 2, “ spirit of wisdom,” 
&c.; Rom. viii. 15, “spirit of bondage ;” Gal. vi. 1, “spirit of meekness.” 

11, 12. “I say then:” These words, as I before remarked in the note 
on ver. 1, refer back to that verse, and determine in favour of the compre- 
hensive sense of the phrase “his people.” The general meaning is this: 
‘ Although the Jews have for a time refused the Gospel through inveterate 
prejudice and judicial blindness, yet it is not to be thought that this has 
been permitted by God with the view of effecting their irrevocable rejec- 
tion and utter ruin. By no means. Their temporary rejection has been 
made the occasion of extending the Gospel to Gentiles. And it is thus 
intended to excite the Jews to emulate their example and to embrace the 
same faith. And were this to be the result, what immense blessings would 
accrue to mankind, since their faithlessness has been made the occasion of 
so much benefit. If divine wisdom causes even the unbelief of the Jews to 
advance his plans by extending Christianity, much rather will this same 
wisdom make their submission to the faith of the Gospel illustrate its truth, 
and promote the best interests of the world,’ 


200 COMMENTARY ON THE {Sxor. XI. 


10 unto them; let their eyes be dark- 76doua adtoic’ oxotiadjTwoav 10 
ened, that they may not see, and of d@¥aApol adta@yv TOU ju) BAET- 
bow down their back alway. ev, Kal TOV vaTOV avT@Y dta- 

11 I say then, Have they stumbled Tavroe obyKkampov. 
that they should fall? God forbid: Aéyw obv: uy) Exraoay, iva 11 


“Have they stumbled that they should fall?’ In this translation the 
last verb continues the figure which begins with the first. But mpooxé7rw 
is the usual Biblical word for stumble. Ilraiw, which is here employed, 
occurs only four other times in the New Testament, namely, James ii. 10, 
iii. 2 twice, and 2 Pet.i.10. In the last case it may mean ‘ fail of success, 
in the three former, ‘in duty,’ “offend.” It is doubtful whether in the text 
it refers to such failure, or whether it is used in its classical meaning, to 
strike against, to stumble. Whichever version be adopted, the general 
idea in the question remains unaltered. In the one case it will be, have 
they sinned, or failed to secure the blessing of acceptance with God? and 
in the other, have they allowed themselves to be so disgusted with and per- 
verted from the truth? In either view moral and spiritual degradation is 
alike implied. The falling immediately afterwards mentioned must be re- 
garded as emphatic, implying utter and irrecoverable ruin. The same 
word is indeed employed in ver. 22, but in a modified sense. The connec- 
tion in the two instances proves that in the former the meaning is stronger 
than in the latter. Such different shades of signification of the same word 
may be found in almost all compositions. 

“To provoke to jealousy :” This word is evidently employed in refer- 
ence to what had been before said in the quotation from Deuteronomy 
contained in x. 19, the Apostle omitting, however, the harsher term, “I will 
anger.” Moses undoubtedly uses it in the strong sense expressed by our 
translation; but here St. Paul appears to employ it in the milder form, ta 
express an inclination to emulate and become equal to the Gentile converts 
in faith and advantages. The thought of human passion, such us anger, 
jealousy, or envy of superior benefit, is out of the question; and in ver. 14 
our own translation has modified the expression, and rendered the same 
term, “to provoke to emulation,” where excite. would have been a still 
more appropriate verb.—The riches of the world denotes the abundant 
favour bestowed on the Gentiles through the Gospel rejected by the Jews.— 
“ Diminishing :” In the margin it is “ decay or loss,” and the former of these 
two words more nearly expresses the sense than either of the others. The 
Greek is 7j7THa, from 7jtTwYv or Foowv, worse, and conveys the idea of a 
bad condition. Hence it is used, both in the form of a noun and a verb, in 
Isa, xxxi. 8,9, This is the only place in which the noun occurs in the Old | 
Testament. Although the best critics differ as to the meaning of the He- 
brew in this passage, some explaining it of destruction in battle, others of 


Cu. XT. 10-12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 201 


Tréawot;, pi) yévorto* dAAd TO dut rather through their fall salva- 
av7T@v TapatTe@uaTe 1) owWTnpia tion is come unto the Gentiles, for to 
totg é9veoty, el¢ TO TapacnA@oat provoke them to jealousy. Now if 12 
12 advrotc. Ei dé 70 tapdmTwpa the fall of them be the riches of the 
avT@v TAOVTOG Kéom0v, Kai TO world, and the diminishing of them 


melting, wasting away, and others again, among whom is Gesenius, of a 
state of tributary subjection; yet, there is no doubt that it denotes a very 
unhappy condition, and this is expressed by the term employed by the 
Septuagint. As a verb it is used in 2 Pet. ii. 19, 20, and is translated 
“overcome,” where our English term worsted would correspond with the 
Greek ; and in 2 Cor. xii. 13, the translation is, ‘‘ ye were inferior,” that is, 
less distinguished. In 1 Cor. vi.'7, the noun expresses a bad state of religious 
character, such as implies having become worse, deterioration, declension. 
These are the only places where the word is found in the New Testament. 
The evident meaning is, a bad and unhappy condition. The idea of 
diminution, diminishing, fewness, applied to this text, seems to have arisen 
from supposing some such sense to be required by the antithetie word 
“fulness,” 7Ajpwua, thought to express the complete conversion of the 
- Jews. But the idea of diminishing the whole Hebrew nation by so com- 
paratively trifling a secession as the converted portion, however considera- 
ble in itself, would form, is not admissible. And if the word be taken in 
the sense of fewness, it must denote the number of converts, and then the 
contrast would be lost. The Apostle would speak of the fall of them, that 
is, of the nation in general, in contradistinction to the fewness of them, 
that is, of the converted body. This is quite improbable-—* Fulness” may 
express a condition of general conversion, a state of complete and full 
benediction, and thus it will afford a suitable antithesis to the wretched 
condition denoted by the other word. Compare, “the fulness of the bless- 
ing of the Gospel of Christ,” in xv. 29. 

13, 14. “I magnify mine office:” Literally, ‘I honour my ministry.’ 
The Apostle refers certainly to his official relation to the Gentiles, as hay- 
ing been called by God to make known the Gospel to them in particular. 
He means that, as an ambassador to them, he honours his ministry, by 
showing the influence which the belief or infidelity of the Jews is calculated 
to exert on his success. If their unbelief is made by God the occasion of 
Gentile conversion, how much rather would their faith become so? It is 
as if he had said, My efforts to excite the Jews tend to exalt the honour of 
my ministry to the Gentiles, because their conversion is accelerated by 
that of the Jews.—“ My flesh:” This term expresses deep affection. It 
originates from what is said of the marriage relation in Genesis ii. 24, and 
is employed to mark the closest union and most intense interest and love. 
Thus the crafty Laban says to Jacob, “Surely thou art my bone and my 


202 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. XI. 








the riches of the Gentiles, how 
13 much more their fulness? For J 
speak to you Gentiles, inasinuch as 
I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I 
14 magnify mine office; if by any 
means I may provoke to emulation 


rTHua adtav TAODTOG E9VOY, 
T60W pLaAdov TO TAHpwna ad- 13 
TOV; ‘Yuiv yap Aéyw Toi 
&dveav * éh’ doov pév elu byw 
E0vOv drbotodoc, tiv dta- 14 
koviav pov dotdsw, eimwe Tapa- 


them which are my flesh, and might 


flesh:” Gen, xxix. 14. Thus Abimelech says to his mother’s brethren 
whose favour he was desirous of conciliating ; “Iam your bone and your 
flesh :” Judg. ix.2. In the same terms the Israelites address David in ap- 
plying to him to become their king: 2 Sam. v.1. And by this figure the 
mystical union of Christ and his church is represented in Eph. v. 30: 
“We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones.” The same 
expressive figure is still employed by the eastern nations of Asia to denote 
a man’s near kindred. 

15. “The casting away” in this verse evidently corresponds with ‘the 
decay, bad condition’ mentioned in the 12th. If this rejection of them, 
this bad condition of theirs, result in the blessed reconciliation of the Gen- 
tiles; how shall the future reception of them be characterised, but as “ life 
from the dead?” The last clause may denote, according to the view of 
many commentators, the blessing both of a moral resurrection of the soul, 
and a future glorious resurrection of the body; and thus it will express the 
full consummation to be followed by so general a conversion. Or, it may 
be a figure to denote the greatest possible happiness. The latter is the 
simpler, and more probable view. 

16. This verse consists of two parallel clauses, each of which conveys 
the same general idea. The former has been thought to allude to the first 
fruits offered to God, from which the lump or mass of dough was kneaded 
to make the consecrated cake. See Levit. ii. 12, 14, and Num. xv. 20, 21. 
Thus the first fruits will be general, comprehending the mass as a part of 
it, and corresponding with the root or trunk which contains the germ and 
substance of the branches which spring from it. Thus Olshausen. But 
it is unnecessary to assume any such correspondence to have been intend- 
ed. The language of the first clause alludes to that in Num. xv. 20, 21: 
“Ye shall offer up a cake” &c. The Septuagint is dtapyijv duvpduaroc¢ 
tu@av—an’ dpyi¢ pupdwaroc tudv* the first fruits of your dough—of the 
first of your dough, The word dépaya, derived from ¢ipw, to mix, espe- 
cially with something moist, occurs only four times in the Old Testament, 
and five in the New, including the place under examination; and in every 
instance, except ix. 21, where it is used for potters’ clay, it means, either a 
kneading trough, or a mass of kneaded dough. See Exod. viii. 3, xii. 34, 
Num. xy. 20 21 1Cor.v.6,7 Gal. v.9. And in the two places in Exodus, 


Cn. XI. 13-16.] 


CnA@ow Lov THY odpka Kal CHOW 
15 tivd¢ &§ avtav. Ei yde 7 dzo- 
BoA adtOv KaTaAAay? Kbopov, 
Tic 1) mpooAnyuc, el 7) Sw) ek 
16 vexp@v ; Ei d& 7) dtapy7 ayia, 
kai TO pvpapa* Kali ei 4 piga 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 





2038 





save some of them. For if the 15 
casting away of them Je the re- 
conciling of the world, what Shall 
the receiving of them be, but life 
from the dead ? For if the first-fruit 16 
be holy, the lump 7s also holy ; and 


if the root be holy, so are the 


where our translation has “ kneading troughs,” the marginal reading is 
“dough.” “The lump” is plainly the whole mass of the dough intended 
to be baked, and “ the first of” it is that portion of the whole, the “cake” 
or loaf, which was consecrated to God. Since this is holy, so also, in a 
modified sense, is the whole mass of which it is a part. The same idea 
runs through the Apostle’s comparison, which appears before in vs. 2-5: 
‘a part consecrates and preserves the whole.’ In order to make a perfect 
parallel with the next clause, some explain this of the pious ancestry of the 
Jews, thus: ‘Ifthe patriarchs were dedicated to God, so in a certain sense 
are all their posterity.’ Others, however, with greater probability, sup- 
pose a reference to the jirst converts who were Jews. And this agrees 
with the usual meaning of the word. Compare viii. 28, where “ first- 
fruits’ means the jirs¢ dispensed spiritual blessings; xvi. 5, where “ the 
first-fruits of Achaia,” is used to express the earliest convert; and in 1 
Cor. xv. 20 “ the first-fruits of them that slept,” designates Christ as risen 
from the dead, the jirst and chief of those who belong to him. 

In the next clause the meaning and bearing of the word roof is to be de- 
termined. Some late commentators consider it as figurative of the divinely 
established theocracy. This being continued in, is regarded as identical 
with, the genuine spiritual children of Abraham. The branches are the 
people merely externally connected. In this case, however, the converted 
Jews would constitute the root in the Apostle’s time. And it is observa- 
ble that he does not say the branches were broken off, but some of them. 
The unbroken ones then would be identical with the root. Thus the rep- 
resentation becomes very confused.—The figure expresses origin and refers 
back to the founders of the nation. If the really religious patriarchs were 
consecrated to God and holy, then the whole mass of their descendants 
partake somewhat of the divine consecration. This view corresponds with 
ver. 28, “ beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” The idea of holiness here pred- 
icated of the entire mass must, of course, be limited by the nature of the 
case. It can mean nothing more than that they are still regarded kindly 
by God in consequence of the covenant relation which he had formed with 
them in the persons of their ancestors, which still inclines him to favour the 
descendants; just as a devoted husband might still feel some affectionate 
regard for a repudiated wife, and even contemplate a reunion. 


204 


COMMENTARY ON THE 
‘ 


- [Secr. XT, 





17 branches. And if some of the 
branches be broken off, and thou, 
being a wild olive tree, wert graffed 
in among them, and with them par- 
takest of the root and fatness of 

18 the olive tree; boast not against 
the branches: but if thou boast, 


ayia, kai ot KAddou, Bi dé teveg 17 
TaV KAddwv elexAdodynoav, ad 
d& dyptéAaiog Ov éverevtpiodng 
év avToig Kai ovykotvwvd¢ TIC 
pigne kar rij¢ TLOTHTOC TH EAaiac 
eyévov, i] KaTaKavy®@ TOV KAd- 18 
dwy* el d& KaTakavyaoat, ov od 


thou bearest not the root, but the 


17, 18. St. Paul says, “some are broken off.” He might have repre- 
sented the tree as nearly stripped, so great had been the excision; but to 
spare the feelings of his brethren, he uses a modified expression.—* Among 
them,” év adtoic: That is, say some, ‘in the place of them.’ This is 
the view of Theophylact,* who substitutes dvi for év, thus making the 
antecedent to be the broken-off branches. But this meaning of év is not 
supported, neither does it agree with the force of the preposition in ovyxot- 
vero ‘partaker along with them.’ It is evident that the Apostle means, 
‘among them that remain,’ the antecedent being implied in the previous 
statement. It is in connection with these remaining branches that the Gen- 
tile grafts partake of the fatness of the tree.—The author enlarges on the 
figure in the latter half of the previous verse. He compares the Gentiles 
to a wild olive, a tree proverbially unprofitable. However cautious he is 
not to offend the Jews, (see x. 2,) he does not hesitate to represent the 
Gentiles under a figure that might be considered as harsh. It has been 
thought somewhat strange that the Apostle should speak of inserting grafts 
of a wild olive, which of course would be useless and unproductive, among 
the branches of a good ome. But even allowing such a procedure to be 
unreasonable, and the supposition of its being ever practised improbable ; 
still, the representation, as descriptive of the introduction of Gentiles among 
the old covenant people, heightens the effect. The illustration is intended 
to show that these slips are engrafted into “the good olive tree” for their 
benefit; not that they might retain in connection therewith their former 
wild and unproductive nature, but that they might draw from its sap such 
nourishment as should make even the wild slips themselves produce fruit 
equally good with that of the parent plant. That such would not be the 
result in the case of a literal engrafting is no objection to the Apostle’s 
remark. He does not say it would. He may intend to mark a difference 
in this respect between the operations of nature and those of grace, To 
say that he did not know what would be the result of such engrafting, is to 
assume an ignorance for which the censoricus hypereritic has no ground, 
Notwithstanding the seeming improbability of introducing slips of wild 
olive into a cultivated tree, it is said to have been occasionally practised 


* On Romans, Opera, Venet. 1755, Tom. ii. p. 82. 


Cu. XI. 17-21.] 


Tv pitav Baordcetc, dad’ H pica 
19 o&. "Epeic obv: &exAdodnoav 
KAddo, iva b&y® éeyxevTpiod9o. 


20 Kade: ty dmiotia éexAdodn-. 


oav, od O& TH ThoTer EoTHKaC: 
pn binAodpbver, aAAad oBov. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


205 


root thee. Thou wilt say then, 19 
The branches were broken off, that 
I might be graffed in. Well; be- 20 
cause of unbelief they were broken 
off, and thou standest by faith. Be 
not high-minded, but fear: for if 21 
God spared not the natural branches, 


21 Ei yao 6 Yed¢ THY Kata pio. 
take heed \est he also spare not thee. 





in order to increase the fruitfulness of the bearing olive. Tholuck and Ols- 
hausen refer, for proof of this, to Columella de re rustica, v. 9; to Palla- 
dius de insitione, xiv. 58, and to Schultz, Leitungen des Hoechsten, Th. y. 
p. 88. 

In ver. 18, the word root, which properly denotes those portions of the 
tree which are embedded and secured under the ground, is employed also 
to express the trunk, as here, and sometimes the whole plant, as we often 
use the word in English. See the note on Heb. xii. 15, p. 167. After the 
word ‘ boast,” the reader must supply some such term as ‘remember.’ 

19, 21. The éyé, “I,” is probably emphatic, as the form of the verb in 
general sufficiently designates the person.—* Well :” Allowing it to be so, 
the Apostle does not say that this was the sole or even the chief reason 
for the divine procedure.-—“ Take heed:” This is introduced by the trans- 
lator. The ellipsis would have been more naturally supplied by the word 
“fear” from the preceding verse. 

22-24. The kindness and the severity of the divine procedure are here 
pointed out in its bearing respectively on Gentile converts and apostatizing 
Jews, with a warning to the former that the continuance of this kindness 
to them depended on the condition of their faithful adherence to the 
Gospel. Otherwise they also would be subjected to the fate of the apos- 
tate Jews. And, on the other hand, if the apostate Jews abandon their 
prejudice and unbelief, they shall be restored to their former spiritual rela 
tion to God, who is abundantly able torestore them. The probability and 
comparative facility of this result are expressed in ver. 24 by a comparison. 
As it would be a process much more natural to re-insert grafts of the pro- 
ductive olive into their own original tree than to introduce wild and fruit- 
less slips; so is it the more reasonable to expect such a restoration of the 
Jews into their former state of religious connection with God. 

25. “ Mystery :” It is important to have a clear idea of the meaning of 
this word in the New Testament. It is employed both in relation to facts 
and principles or doctrines. Sometimes it denotes such actual truths as 
can only become known by revelation, since they are not discoverable 
merely by human reason. Thus, in 1 Cor. xy. 51, speaking of the change 
which the body is to undergo at the end of the present condition of things, 


206 


22 Behold therefore the goodness and 
severity of God: on them which 
fell, severity; but towards thee, 
goodness, if thou continue in his 
goodness ; otherwise thou also shalt 

23 be cut off. And they also, if they 
abide not still in unbelief, shall be 
graffed in; for God is able to graff 

24 them in again. For if thou wert 
cut out of the olive tree which is 
wild by nature, and wert graffed 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Secor. XL 


KAdswv ovK édeicato, pitor 
oddé cov peiaerat, ‘Ide obv ypy- 22 
oréTnTa Kai adtoTomiav eov* 
énit pév toc tecbvTa¢g dmoTo- 
piav, eri d& o& ypnorérnta, éav 
eruseivyg TH XpnoToTyTL’ errel 
kai ov éxxorrhoys Kdxeivot 6é, tav 23 
[7] Exipeivwot TH dmoria, &yKev- 
TpLadjoovrat* Svvaroc yap éorw 
6 ede TaALv éyKevtpiaat adTovc. 
Ei yap ov &éx tig Kata bow 24 


St. Paul says, “I show you a mystery.” Again, it denotes real facts the 
manner and operation of which we cannot fully comprehend, and in this 
sense the Apostle calls the spiritual union of “ Christ and the church a great 
mystery :” Eph. v. 32. And it is often applied to what is in no respect 
mysterious in itself, but was either not at all or but very imperfectly 
known. Thus, in Eph. iii. 3,4, 9, it expresses the divine intention of uniting 
Gentiles and Jews in the one church of Christ, “in other ages not made 
known as now revealed.” Here it marks that spiritual blindness and hard- 
ness of heart which God permitted to affect the Israelites, a fact which had 
been unknown and was inexplicable to many.—Some ancient authorities 
read éavtoic alone, some have the preposition év, and some trapd. The sense 
is not affected.—St. Paul is addressing himself principally to the Gentile 
converts. In order to prevent them from cherishing feelings of superiority 
over the Jewish nation, he informs them of what they did not before know, 
namely, that the unhappy spiritual condition of the Jews was only partial 
and transitory. “In part” is better connected with Israel than with blind- 
ness. ‘The meaning is not, ‘ blindness in some respects has affected them,’ 
but, ‘it has taken place on a part of them. This phrase is in evident con- 
trast with “ add Israel,” in the next verse. The expression is like the mod- 
ified language of ver. 17, “ some of the branches are broken off,” and doubt- 
less was prompted by the same motive. See the note there.—The next 
point shows this state to be temporary: “ until the fulness of the Gentiles 
be come in.” This does not express absolute universality, but only a very 
extensive and general state of Gentile conversion ; and thus it corresponds 
with the language in the next verse, “all Israel shall be saved,” meaning, 
the nation in general. The Apostle’s remarks in vs, 12-15 seem to imply 
an expectation on his part that Jewish conversion would promote that of 
Gentiles; a representation which would hardly comport with the theory 
that a conversion of all Gentiles is to precede that of the Israelitish body. 

26, 27. “ All Israel:” That is, the whole nation which shall then sub- 


sist. Such expressions are often used in a general sense.—“ Shall be 


Cn. XI. 22-26.) 


EPISTLE TO THE 


ROMANS. 


eee 


éiexérn¢ dypteAaiov Kat Tapa 
‘ge bd 4 4 
obo évexevtpiadnge el¢ KaArdAté- 
Aatov, 60m paAdov ovtoe oi 
kata dtow éyKevtpiodjoovtat 


contrary to nature into a good olive 
tree; how much more shall these, 
which be the natural branches, be 
graffed into their own olive tree? 


25 TH iia édaia. Ov yao ¥éAw For I would not, brethren, that ye 25 
vac adyvoety, ddeAdoi, 76 pvoTH- should be ignorant of this mystery, 
plov Tovro, (iva ju7) WTe Tag’ Eav- lest ye should be wise in your own 
Toi¢ Ppovysol,) OTL THpwotc amd conceits, that blindness in part is 
pépove TO "lopaijA yéyovev, dypi¢ happened to Israel, until the fulness 
ov 70 TAHpwua TOV E9VOv éEio- of the Gentiles be come in. And so 26 


26 EAYy. Kai ottw ma¢ “Iopa7A all Israel shall be saved: as it is 


saved :” In other words, converted to the Gospel and partake of its bless- 
ings. Comp. x. 1. On the promise here made, see Whitby’s Appendix 
to his notes on this chapter, at the end of his Commentary on the Epistle. 

In these verses the Apostle quotes or refers to Isa. lix. 20, 21, Ps. xiii. 7 
in the Septuagint, or xiv. in the Hebrew and English. He may also have 
in view Jer. xxxi. 33, 34, which relates to the same subject, and is quoted 
also in Heb. viii. 10, where see the note, pp. 107,108. The words “ when 
I shall take away their sins” are added from the Sept. of Isa. xxvii. 9, with 
which they agree, except in the alteration of the singular pronoun into the 
plural. The quotation from Isa, lix. is imperfect, and the reader is expected 
to supply the deficiency. This is usual with Jewish writers. See note on iv. 
18, p. 70. The citation corresponds with the Septuagint, except in the é« 
for vexev, on account of. Koppe thinks that this was probably the origi- 
nal reading here, and that EK, a contraction of it, was altered to éx, through 
a misunderstanding of some transcriber. The Hebrew is “to Zion.” The 
reading on account of would suit the Apostle’s immediate purpose exceed- 
ingly well, as he is speaking of Israel’s future elevation. He must there- 
fore have had some reason for preferring from. Tholuck suggests that it 
may have been to call attention to the fact, that the Redeemer sprang from 
the very people whom he was to convert. But he is not satisfied either 
with this or any other solution stated by expositors. He conjectures either 
that é« has-been substituted by some transcribers for évexev, or that the 
author, through lapse of memory, varies occasionally from the Hebrew or 
the Septuagint. But this is even less satisfactory. The remark of Fritzsche, 
which he thinks inadmissible, appears to be entitled to great consideration. 
This commentator regards it as altogether improbable that a passage of 
Scripture, to which St. Paul attaches so much importance and which he 
must frequently have read with great care, should have at all escaped his 
memory, or, if so, not have been examined. Vitringa on the text in Isaiah 
conjectures that, along with this passage, the Apostle connected in his mind 
several others, and particularly that in the Psalm referred to, where “ sal- 


208 


written, There shall come out of 
Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn 
27 away ungodliness from Jacob: for 
this 7s my covenant unto them, when 
28 I shall take away their sins. As 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE (Seer. XL. 





owInoeTa, Kadacg yéyparrat* 
jeer &x Luav 6 pvbuerog Kar 
drootpéyper doeBeiac a0 "lane. 
Kai attn adroicg 7 mag’ 2uov 27 
diadnkn, Srav ddédAwpar tag 


concerning the gospel, they are ene- daptiag avT@v. Kard pév 76 28 


vation from Zion” is prayed for. And it is very probable that the words 
of the Psalm did suggest the form of expression. Still it does not appear 
at all improbable that, in quoting the prediction of Isaiah, St. Paul modi- 
fies the language so as to suit the particular shade of thought he wished to 
convey. ‘The general meaning he does not alter. The Hebrew prophet 
speaks of the Redeemer as coming to Zion. This was perfectly natural, 
as Zion was the centre of national glory. The Christian Apostle, not deny- 
ing that the Redeemer had come ¢o Zion, speaks of his marching as it were 
triumphantly owt of Zion, and subduing all opposition. Thus the passage, 
as applied in the Epistle, will be understood figuratively, and be equivalent 
to Isa. ii. 3, ‘owt of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord 
jrom Jerusalem.” A similar modification is probably to be found in Eph. 
iv. 8. In reference to the supply of divine blessings to be hereafter dis- 
pensed, the Psalmist says, Ixviii. 18, “ thou hast received gifts for men ;” 
while the Apostle, applying the words to the effusion which had actually 
taken place, changes the original phrase into, “he gave gifts wnto men.” 

“ And shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob :” The literal meaning 
of the Hebrew is given in the English translation of Isaiah: “unto them 
that turn away from transgression in Jacob.” Grotius, on the text in Ro- 
mans, thinks it evident that the Greek translator used a Hebrew copy with 
a reading slightly differing from the present. This is possible. But the 
supposition is entirely unnecessary, as this translator may have intended to 
give merely the general meaning of the passage, intermingling therewith 
his own comments. ‘“ When the prophecy declares,” says Vitringa, “ that 
the Messiah would come to Zion, meaning, for its benefit, and to them that 
turn away from transgression in Jacob, it expresses the object for which he 
would come, to convert the posterity of Jacob from sin. So the Chaldee: » 
‘to turn the rebels of the house of Jacob to the Jaw.’ And Kimchi adds : 
‘because then all the Israelites shall be thoroughly converted.’” Most 
probably the Septuagint intended to convey the same thought; and as it 
was particularly appropriate to St. Paul’s design, and, moreover, intended 
to confirm the view $0 often expressed or implied before, that such conver- 
sion can only be effected through the grace of the Redeemer, the reason of 
his preferring the Septuagint version of the clause is evident.—Symmachus 
agrees with the Hebrew: toi¢ droorpépaoww doéBerav év "laxéB. So 
also Aquila, except that he substitutes d¥eoiay for doébevav, See Pro- 


Cu. XI. 27-80.] 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


209 





evayyéhtov ey Spot du’ bude, KaTa 
o& tiv éexAoyy dyannrot dia 
29 rove matépacg* dwerauéAnra yao 
Ta Yaplouata Kal 7 KARoLWG TOU 


mies for your sakes; but as touch- 
ing the election, they are beloved 
for the fathers’ sakes: for the gifts 29 
and calling of God are without re- 


30 Yeov. “Qomep yap Kat tueic pentance. For as ye in times past 30 


have not believed God, yet have 


copius in Drusius, Crit. Sac. on Isaiah, or Montfaucon’s Hexaplorum Orig- 
inis que supersunt, Tom. ii. p, 184. 

28, 29. These verses have already been sufficiently explained in the 
note on ver. 1, p. 195, 196. 

31, 382. The 30th verse refers to the former condition of the Gentiles, as 
stated in ix. 30 and x. 20, and also to the fact that Jewish unbelief had 
been made the occasion of extending the Gospel to them, as mentioned in 
vs. 11, 12,15. In the next verse, some interpreters place the comma after 
éAéet, translating, ‘so these also have now become unfaithful for your 
mercy.’ This is the Rheims translation, and the meaning of it is to this 
effect: their faithless condition has resulted in your obtaining merey. But 
this would be a mere repetition of what had just been said, and would also 
leave the last clause without any suitable dependence on what precedes it. 
The Vulgate has adopted this same punctuation, but translates so as to 
suggest a different meaning: non crediderunt in vestram misericordiam.— 
Luther gives the same idea, ‘not believe in the mercy which has happened 
unto you,’ and so also Tyndale and Cranmer. But, although this would be 
an additional thought to that just before stated, yet the want of connection 
and dependence would still remain. The comma should follow 77rei8qjoav 
The objection that, in this case, {va must precede TO byerépw éAéer is not 
of much weight, as instances occur where this and other particles are in 
serted within the clauses which they are intended to qualify. See the latter 
fva both in 1 Cor. ix. 15, and 2 Cor. ii. 4; also Gal. ii. 10, and ed in 1 Cor. 
xv. 2.—It is worthy of note that the Apostle does not say in reference to 
the Gentiles, ‘through your obedience or faithfulness they may obtain 
mercy,’ which his antithesis might seem to require; but, “through your 
mercy,” that is, ‘through the favour which has been shown to you.’ Per- 
haps his intention was to avoid language which might tend to raise the 
Gentiles too much in their own estimation, and at the same time to remind 
them of their obligation to God’s mercy for the benefits of the Gospel. 

“God hath concluded :” The merely English reader must not suppose 
that this word has here any logical force. The marginal reading, “ shut 
up together,” the translation of Wiclif, “ closid to gidre,” that of Tyndale, 
Cranmer and the Genevan, “ wrapped in,” give the meaning of the original, 
which is also etymologically expressed by the English word in its old 
sense as derived from cum and claudo.—Macknight translates thus: “ God 

14 


210 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE [Secr. XL 





now obtained mercy through their 
31 unbelief; even so have these also 
now not believed, that through your 
mercy they also may obtain mercy. 
32 For God hath concluded them all 
in unbelief, that he might have 
33 mercy upon all. O the depth of 
the riches both of the wisdom and 
knowledge of God! How unsearch- 


Tore irevdijaaTe TH VEO, viv dE 
bAendnre TH TobTwY dreweia* 
obTw Kal obToL Viv Areidnaay, 31 
TO byetipw édéer iva Kai adroit 
bAend@ot. Lvvénrece yde 6 32 
Ved TOG TavTac Ele dreiVeLar, 
iva trove mdvrac édefjon. "2 33 
Badog tAobTOV Kai oodiac Kal 
yvdcews Yeod* we dvetepebvynta 


hath shut up together all (under sentence of death) for disobedience.” To 
prove that ele dreievav does not mean in unbelief, but for disobedience, 
he refers to the use of el¢ in Mark i. 4, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2 Thess. i. 11. But, 
although the English word jor expresses the sense of el¢ in these places; 
yet the idea which it conveys is plainly different from that which Mac- 
knight intends in this verse. He must mean, in consequence of ; whereas 
in the places referred to ei¢ means either, in order to procure, or, for the 
benefit of, or, so as to permit a result. The references therefore are not 
parallel. This is not the only instance in which this commentator errs in 
the same way. On Phil. iv. 15, he translates d76 in, a meaning which it 
never bears, but which he attempts to sustain by the phrase a7 p1épove, 
rendered in English by ‘in part,’ referring also to his fourth preliminary 
Essay, No. 86, where he quotes these words from 2 Cor. i. 14. Such a 
philological criticism could hardly be expected from a scholar of his repu- 
tation. He argues in favour of his view of el¢, that “ while a man is shut 
up in unbelief or disobedience, that is, while he is made to continue in un- 
belief, he is not an object of mercy, neither can he receive the Gospel.” 
But this is not the meaning of the phrase. The true sense may be illus- 
trated by Gal. iii. 22, “the Scripture hath concluded, shut up, all under 
sin,” where the Greek verb is the same as here. To shut up under or to 
another, is to subject to his control. Thus we read in Deut. xxxii. 30, 
“the Lord had shut them up ;” and in Ps, xxxi, 8, (in the Sept. xxx. 9, 
where the Greek word is the same as that employed by the Apostle,) 
“hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy.” The literal meaning 
then of the clauses in the two epistles is this: ‘God hath subjected all men 
to unbelief,’ or, ‘the Scripture hath subjected all men to sin ;’ meaning that 
it declares, or that God in Scripture declares this to be their natural state 
and he so regards them. It is not affirmed that God produces this condi- 
tion. Either he is represented as allowing it, or the verbs are declarative. 
The latter view would accord with usage. Thus we have “hath made 
old” for ‘hath declared to be so,’ in Heb. viii. 13.-—The last clause of the 
verse is not to be understood individually but collectively, like “ all Israel” 
in ver. 26, ' 


Cu. XI. 81-86.) 


Ta Kpiwara avrTov Kal aveiiyvi- 
34 actor ai ddot adrov. Tic yao 
~ YJ ae 
éyvw vovv Kkupiov ; 7 Tic ovp- 
~ .) ~ ’ 7 ny 4 
35 Bovdoc avTtov &yéveto; 7 Tic 
mpotdwxev adT@, Kal’ dvTatodo- 
36 Yjoerae at’T@; “Ore && adTov 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


211 


able are his judgments, and his 
ways past finding out! For who 34 
hath known the mind of the Lord ? 
or who hath been his counsellor ? 
or who hath first given to him, and 35 
it shall be recompensed unto him 


* kat Ov adtovd Kai eic abtov Ta 

4 tJ ~ e Le a > ‘ 

madvtTa* avT@ 1 dda ei¢ Tov 
aidvac. dun. 


again? For of him, and through 36 
him, and to him, are all things: to 
whom be glory for ever. Amen. 


33-36. Some ancient authorities omit the first kai. Among them is the 
Vulgate which translates, O altitudo divitiarum sapientie et scientie Dei. 
Commentators differ on this point: whether the three nouns which imme- 
diately follow depth express three distinct ideas, or whether this word and 
riches merely denote the profundity and vastness of what is comprehended 
under the other two. According to the latter view, the Apostle will utter 
his feeling of amazement at the immeasurable and incomprehensible great- 
ness of God’s wisdom and knowledge, and the first xat will be rendered 
both, The former view retains the usual meaning of the copulative, and 
regards riches as equivalent to abundant favour or love. Although this 
word is most frequently employed in immediate connection with some 
other to which it adds force, as in Rom. ii. 4, ix. 23, 2 Cor. viii. 2, Eph. i. 
7, 18, and many other places; yet it is also employed independently, as in 
Eph. iii. 8 and Phil. iv.19. Thus St. Paul will burst out in admiration of 
God’s profound love and wisdom and knowledge, as displayed in the Gospel 
scheme of salvation. Either of these views harmonizes with other places, 
and agrees with the meaning of the Greek. The one just stated, being the 
fullest, is perhaps on that account to be preferred. But the argument in 
favour of it which is drawn by Olshausen from the particular adaptation of 
the phrases that follow to the three points respectively, and also from the 
three prepositions in ver 36, does not appear to have much force. 

The quotation in the next verses is from Isa. xl. 18, 14, with an allusion 
to Job xli. 11, (Heb. 3.) The sentiment which they contain is evidently 
this: The purposes of God are beyond the reach of finite intellect or influ- 
ence. The idea in the last verse may be expressed as follows: From 
God all things are produced, by him they subsist, and to his glory they 
tend. The subject of the Apostle’s doxology is undoubtedly God, the Holy 
Trinity, and the prepositions which he employs are entirely in harmony 
with scriptural usage in distinct reference to the three persons, But, inas- 
much as they are also employed in reference to God comprehensively con- 
sidered, there is not sufficient reason to suppose a distinction of the persons 
to be thereby particularly intended. 





XII. 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 





SECTION XII. 


Cuars. XII.-XVI. 
THE PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE. 


I beseech you, therefore, breth- 
ren, by the mercies of God, that ye 
present your bodies a living sacri- 
fice, holy, acceptable unto God, 
which is your reasonable service. 
And be not conformed to this world ; 
but be ye transformed by the re- 
newing of your mind, that ye may 
prove what is that good, and ac- 
ceptable, and perfect will of God. 
For I say, through the grace given 
unto me, to every man that is among 
you, not to think of himself more 
highly than he ought to think; 
but to think soberly, according as 
God hath dealt to every man the 
measure of faith. For as we have 
many members in one body, and all 
members have not the same office; 
so we, being many, are one body in 


Tlapakaa® ovv bac, ddeApoi, XII. 


dud TOV olKTipu@v Tov Veov, 
Tapacrioat Ta owpata DuU@Y 
Svoiav GHoay, ayiav, ebdpecrov 
TO YEO, THY AoytKiv AaTpEiav 
~ Ss ~ 4 
tuav: Kai pa) ovoynuarigedde 
7 al@ve TobTwW, GAAd peTa- 
poppovodse 7 dvakatvaoet TOV 
voog tuav, ei¢ TO doKkimdcerv 
e ~ ic > 4 ~ ~ 
tac, TL TO BEAnua Tov Veod, 
TO dyadov Kai evdpeotov Kai 
7 7 ‘ \ 4 
téheiov, Aéyw ydo dia Tij¢ 
xapitoc THC SodEiang jor TavTi 
TO Ovee év buiv, pq drEphpoveiv 
mag’ 6 det dpovetv, GAAG ppovetv 
ele TO owdpoveiv, ExdoTw oc 6 
Sedo euépioe pétpov Tiorewe. 
Kaddreo yae év évi obpate pédn 
TOAAG Eyouev, TA OF WEAN TaVTA 
od Tiyv avriy &yet TpAky, OVTWE 


(Seer. XII. 


As the leading topics of the Epistle are discussed at length in the preceding 
chapters, and those which follow are chiefly confined to what is hortatory 
and practical, the notes shall be few and in general brief. 

Cuap. xii. 2. “That ye may prove:” Either, have proof of by experi- 
ence, or, give proof of by example. Probably both are comprehended. 
Comp. Eph. v. 10, Phil. i. 10. 

3. “The grace given unto me:” That is, through the Apostolic gift and 
authority with which he had been graciously entrusted. Comp. i. 5.— 
“ Measure of faith:” In other words, the degree of faithful character. This 
is, in every believer, the gift of God. 

4,5. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 17, xii..12.—With 6 dé ra¥’ elc, and every one, 
comp. 3 Mace. v. 34, 6 ka® eic d& TOV didwy, but every one of his friends ; 
also Mark xiv. 19, John viii. 9, and Rey. xxi. 21. 

6. “ Prophecy :” The word here means the gift of prophesying, that is, 
of speaking in the authority of God and under divine influence. The idea 


Cu. XII. 1-8.] 





of roAAot bv o@ud éomev ev 
Xpior@, 6 dé Kav cic dAAHAwY 
Z ” \ , 
pédn. "Exovtec 0& yapiopata Ka- 
Ta THY YapLy THY dodEtoay tury 
Stdbopa* eite mpoprtetav, Kata 
Tv dvadoyiay tig TioTEws’ 
elte dvakoviay, év TH Oltakovia ° 
elte 6 diddoKwr, év TH didacKa- 
Aia* eite 6 TapaKkaddr, ev TH 
4 e 7 > 
TapakAnjoer* 6 jetadidovc, &v 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 





Christ, and every one members one 
of another. Having then gifts dif- 
fering according to the grace that 
is given to us, whether prophecy 
let us prophesy according to the pro- 
portion of faith ; or ministry, Jet us 
wait on our ministering ; or he that 
teacheth, on teaching; or he that 
exhorteth, on exhortation. He that 
giveth, let him do it with simplicity ; 


213 


he that ruleth, with diligence; he 
that showeth mercy, with cheerful- 


arAoryTt* 6 TpoioTtduevoc, év 
oTovdn* 6 &hewy, Ev idapornre. 
of predicting future events is not an essential element in the signification 
of the word. Prophecy may be prediction, or it may be nothing more 
than instruction, declaration, exhortation, warning communicated under 
divine direction and influence. The proper and probably the original 
meaning of the word prophet is, one who speaks as God’s substitute or am- 
bassador. Thus it is said of Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, 
and Aaron shall be thy prophet ;” of which the language that precedes is 
explanatory: “ He shall be thy spokesman unto the people; he shall be to 
thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God:” Exod. 
vii. 1, iv. 16. To the same purpose we read in Jer. xv.19: “If thou take 
forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth.” The two 
words anciently used for prophet by the Greeks, mpopjtn¢ and bropArne, 
seem to be nearly equivalent, meaning one who speaks for, before, or under, 
that is, in the place of another. This is undoubtedly the signification of the 
term where it first occurs in the Bible, in the narrative of Abraham’s resi- 
dence with Abimelech. The Almighty warns the king of Gerar in a dream 
not to injure the Patriarch, adding, “ for he is a prophet, and he shall pray 
for thee, and thou shalt live:” Gen. xx. 7. He is thus declared to be a 
This is 
A prophet is 
a messenger of God, divinely inspired, directed and commissioned to com- 
municate his will to men, to extend the knowledge of his character, and 
thus to advance his glory. 

“ According to the proportion of faith:” This clause, rendered, ‘accord- 
ing to the analogy of the faith, has been supposed to convey this meaning : 
‘so as to harmonize with the general scheme of religion as revealed in the 
New Testament.’ Under the guidance of this principle, theological opinions 
have been formed and moulded, and bodies of divinity composed, the au- 
thors of which have been exceedingly careful not to introduce anything in 
opposition to certain systems which they suppose to constitute the essen- 
tial substance of Christian doctrine. Perhaps few principles have exercised 


sacred personage, the interpreter of God, speaking as his agent. 
also a very usual sense of the word in the New Testament. 


214 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seor. XII. 





9 ness. Let love be without dissimu- 
lation. Abhor that which is evil; 
10 cleave to that which is good. Be 
kindly affectioned one to another 
with brotherly love ; in honour pre- 
11 ferring one another ; not slothful in 
business ; fervent in spirit ; serving 
12 the Lord; rejoicing in hope; patient 
in tribulation ; continuing instant 
13 in prayer; distributing to the ne- 
cessity of saints; given to hospi- 
14 tality. Bless them which persecute 
15 you; bless, and curse not. Rejoice 
with them that do rejoice, and 


'H dydrn dvuTéxpitog* dtootu- 9 
yowvrec TO TovNpOV, KOAAG@pEVOL 
TO dyad@: ty piAadeAdia ei¢ 10 
dAAndove didéoropyo.* TH THyLy 
dAAjAove mponyotmevor’ TH 11 
arovdy py OKvnpoi* TH TVvEb- 
pate Céovtec* TO Kvpiw dovaed- 
ovrec* TH Amide yaipovrec* TH 12 
VAinber iromévovtec* TH Tmpod- 
EVY]] ~TpookaptEepovyTec* Taic 13 
xpeiaic TOV ayiwv KoLvwvodr- 
Tec’ tiv dtAokeviav dioKovrec. 
EdAoyeite Tove duaKkovrac buac* 14 
evdoyeite, Kal pu} KaTapaove. 


greater influence than this on scriptural interpretation. It has diminished, 
modified, and added to revealed truth, at pleasure. Doubtless there is a 
oneness in the New Testament revelation, all the parts of which not only 
cohere, but are also in perfect unison ; so that an interpretation which shall 
represent different passages as conflicting in doctrinal statement must ne- 
cessarily be erroneous. But to assume the infallible truth of a system of 
doctrine independently of Scripture, and then to bring the tenets of such 
system as a criterion of the meaning of Scripture, is to set up an unau- 
thorised rule of faith. Careful philological and exegetical examination 
will prove that such a supposed safeguard is unnecessary, and experience 
and observation show it to be injurious. Neither does the principle re- 
ceive any support from the words of the text. “The proportion of faith” 
is equivalent to “the measure of faith” in ver. 38, and simply means, the 
degree of the divinely imparted gift. The reader may find some useful 
remarks on this subject in Campbell’s fourth Dissertation preliminary to 
his Translation of the Gospels, Section 13, Compare also Ernesti on In- 
terpretation, Stuart’s Translation, Sect. 34, p. 17, and Morus, Par. 1, Sect. 
i. xix. pp. 70, 71, and Sect. ii, Cap. iii. xvi—xviii., pp. 258-259, and Locke in 
loc., note (h). 

Olshausen agrees with Griesbach in reading kaip@ for kvpiw. He admits 
that the latter reading, which is also the received, “ has by far the greater 
support from authorities,” but still decides in favour of the former on the 
ground of internal evidence, remarking that a charge sa entirely general as 
‘to serve the Lord,’ is out of place among such altogether special exhorta- 
tions.” Such an argument has no great force, for the phrase immediately 
preceding, “fervent in spirit,” that is, ardent, zealous in mind, (comp. 
Acts xviii. 25,) is of very general application; and indeed so also is the 
exhortation which arises from the reading he prefers, “ serving the time,” 


Cu. XII. 9-19.] EPISTLE TO 
15 Xaipew pera yapdvTwy kai 
16 KAaiew peta KAaovtTwy. TO 
av7o sig dAAHAovE Ppovorvytec * 
pn Ta bYnAd Hpovorytec, dAAG 
Tol¢ TaTElvoig ovvaTayouEvot ° 
pu) yiveode dpoviuot map’ éav- 
17 totic. Mydevi kakdv avti kakovd 
dzod.dévrec* Tmpovoovmevot Ka- 
Ad EvOrriov TaVTwWY dVOPOTWY. 
18 Ei dvvarév, 76 && byov, peta 
TaVTWY AVOPOTWY eipnvEetovTEC’ 
19 pe) Eavtodvs ExdiKovvTEC, dyaTn- 
Toi, GAAG OdTE TéTOY TH Opy7R- 


THE ROMANS. 216 
weep with them that weep. Be of 16 
the same mind one toward another. 
Mind not high things, but con- 
descend to men of low estate. Be 
not wise in your own conceits. Re- 
compense to no man evil for evil. 
Provide things honest in the sight 
of all men. If it be possible, as 
much as lieth in you, live peaceably 
with all men. Dearly beloved, 
avenge not yourselves; but rather 
give place unto wrath: for it is 
written, Vengeance ts mine; I will 


17 


18 


19 


yéypantat ydo* éuot éxdixnotc, repay, saith the Lord. Therefore 20 


which means, either yielding to uncontrollable circumstances, or, wisely 
availing one’s self of any opportunity of Christian usefulness. Eph. v. 16 
is not exactly parallel, as there the reading is, éayopagoyevor Tov Kalpor, 
which appears to be borrowed from Dan. ii. 8. Olshausen allows too that 
the phrase ‘to serve the time’ is not found in Greek before the second 
century, though frequently occurring in Latin. The other, ‘to serve the 
Lord,’ is very common. 

14. Comp. Matt. v. 44. 

15. The infinitive is used in the sense of the imperative. 

16, first clause: Comp. Phil. ii. 2.— Condescend :” ovvarayépevor 
literally, ‘ being led away along with,’ equivalent to, ‘allowing yourselves to 
be associated or connected with, willingly yielding to”—To men of low 
estate :” toi¢ tametvoic’ This may be masculine, as in our translation, and 
the meaning will be, conforming to, associating and sympathizing with the 
humble; or it may be neuter and express the duty of a willing acqui- 
escence in humble and lowly circumstances. The antithesis with the neuter 
“high things,” favours this view, but the compounded preposition ctv 
agrees better with the other. 

17. “ Providing things honest :” Literally ‘providing’ or ‘taking care 
for good things.’ The meaning is, carefully and earnestly endeavouring to 
do what is right. Comp, 2 Cor. viii. 21, and Prov, iii. 4. 

19. “Give place unto:” We have the same phrase in Luke xiv. 9, 
“ give this man place ;” that is, yield position or precedence to him: also in 
Eph. iv. 27, “neither give place to the devil;” meaning, do not submit to 
him. ‘The words never elsewhere occur in the New Testament. Analogy 
therefore would suggest this exposition: yield to wrath, allow it to have its 
rightful sway. In this case the wrath must be understood of God, as is 
done by several commentators, both in accordance with the former clause 


216 CUMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. XIT. 


if thine enemy hunger, feed him; ¢y@ dvratodéow, Aéyer Kiptoc. 
if he thirst, give him drink: forin "Edy obv recva 6 éydpd¢ cov, 20 
so doing thou shalt heap coals of Yapuce avdrév+ éav dupa, morte 
21 fire on his head. Be not overcome avT6v* TovTO yap Toy avdpa- 
of evil, but overcome evil with Ka¢ mupd¢ awpetoerg ext tiv 
good. Kkepadny adtov. M7) vwiKd b70 21 
TOU KaKOv, GAAG Vika ev TH 
dyad@ 70 KaKov, 


of the verse, and also with the quotation from Deut. xxxii. 35, which fol- 
Jows. The sentiment will then be this: Give way to the just anger of 
God, and be not solicitous to vindicate yourselves by inflicting punishment. 
Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 23. But the omission of God, the principal party, is un- 
natural, and the first clause of the verse affords quite a sufficient antithesis 
to the statement of the quotation.—If the wrath be referred to the offender, 
the meaning may be, ‘ yield by avoiding it,’ and the direction will be pru- 
dential.—lIf it be that of the injured person, the meaning of the phrase can- 
not be as above given, for this would manifestly be the very reverse of 
the Apostle’s intention, He cannot possibly exhort the Christian to in- 
dulge in angry passion. Adhering to the literal meaning of the words and 
yet applying them according to the nature of the injunction, we may inter- 
pret the clause thus: Give room to, that is, space, opportunity to depart. 
The exhortation is, not merely to defer the indulgence or exercise of anger, 
but not at all to retain it; to give it free egress, to abandon it, and yield 
our cause to the righteous God. 

20,21. The quotation is from Prov. xxv. 21, 22. It is very like the 
language in 2 Esdras xvi. 54: “God shall burn coals of fire upon his 
head which saith before the Lord God and his glory, I have not sinned.” 
The idea prominent in these passages is evidently that of severe penal suf- 
fering. This is expressed by the words themselves, and the antithetic 
clause in Proverbs, “the Lord shall reward thee,” which immediately fol- 
Jows the quotation, confirms this result. The pain of penitence, arising 
from a consciousness of having done wrong, is no doubt comprehended. 
Such places as 2 Sam, xiv. 7, are wholly irrelevant, as they only show that 
the figure of a coal may be employed in illustration of what is desirable 
and valued. The authors of the Proverbs and the Epistle both refer un- 
doubtedly to the proper punishment of the offender. But it cannot be 
proved that either has in view the gratification of private passion in such 
punishment. They speak of it rather as resulting in the repentance of the 
guilty person, who, being suitably chastised, is converted through the kind- 
ness of the injured party. And it may be well to note that this motive 
appears even in some of the imprecatory Psalms. See Ixxxiii. 16, cix. 27; 
and compare 1 Cor. y.5,and 1 Tim.i.20, And even if such should not be 


Cu. XII. 20-X11.8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. yf 





XIIL. aoa yur eovotiacg brepe- Let every soul be subject unto XIII. 


yoboac brotaccéoSw* ov yao 
éotiv éSovota el pe) ad Yeov, ai 
dé ovoa [éovoiar| id Veov 
Tetaypéval ciciv, “Qote 6 dvtt- 
TacoomEevocg TH eSovoia TH TO 
Yeov dvatayy avdéornkev * of dé 
dvdeornk6tes Eavtoic Kpiwa Aj- 
povrat. Oi yde dpyovtec ovK 
clot poBog TOY adyad@v Epywr, 


the higher powers. For there is no 
power but of God; the powers that 
be are ordained of God. Whosoever 
therefore resisteth the power, resist- 
eth the ordinance of God ; and they 
that resist shallreceive to themselves 
damnation. For rulers are not a ter- 
ror to good works, but to the evil. 
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the 


GAAd TOV KaKOv: VéXetc OE [L7) 
goBetodae tiv éfovoiav; 70 


power ? do that which is good and 
thou shalt have praise of the same; 


the result, nothing more can be intended than a degree of punishment 
necessary to vindicate the divine law. From this passage no inference to 
sanction private passion can be drawn which might not be drawn from the 
former verse and also from others. Comp. Ps. xciv., 2 Tim. iv. 14, and 
other similar places. The Apostle exhorts us to resign to God the office of 
punishing, and to endeavour through love and acts of kindness to conquer 
our enemies, and thus to bring them to repentance and a change of character. 

xiii. 1, 2. The tendency of the Jews to rebellion illustrates the propriety 
of these precepts, which were also calculated to show unconverted Roman 
citizens, that the nature of Christianity was in no respect hostile to civil 
government. Legitimate authority is of course intended. But neither our 
Lord nor his Apostles ever determined what it is that makes civil author- 
ity legitimate, further than a settled government. The established, recog- 
nised government is authoritative, and it is in reference to such a one that 
their precepts are laid down. What form such government may rightly 
take or have taken, is one of the questions which the New Testament ig- 
nores. Neither does it enter into the question of the citizen’s rights or 
duty during the process of a revolution, when political and civil aflairs are 
in a transition state.—Government is not dependerft on human will; it is 
God’s institution; and whatever form man’s inclination and action may 
give to it, is given under the permission of his superintending providence, 
and therefore to be regarded as authoritative. All human authority, even 
the very highest, must yield to that of God, whom “we ought to obey 
rather than men :” Acts v. 29. But it is the duty of every man to satisfy 
his mind by careful and conscientious examination respecting this highest 
of all laws, before he presumes to place what he thinks to be demanded by 
it in contradistinction to the legal enactments of the legitimate authority 
of his country. 

3. This expresses what the ruler ought and is presumed to be. The 
Apostle rather describes the nature of the office than the character of those 





18 


COMMENTARY ON THE 





for he is the minister of God to 
thee for good. But if thou do that 
which is evil, be afraid; for he 
beareth not the sword in vain: for 
he is the minister of God, a re- 
venger to execute wrath upon him 
that doeth evil. Wherefore ye 
must needs be subject, not only for 
wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 
For, for this cause pay ye tribute 
also: for they are God’s ministers, 
attending continually upon this very 
thing. Render, therefore, to all 
their dues ; tribute to whom tribute 
is due; custom to whom custom; 
fear to whom fear ; honour to whom 


dyadov toiet, Kai ESeug Emavvov 
é& adtijg* Yeov yao dudKovoc 
fate aol ele TO dyadév: édv dé 
TO KaKoVv Toye, poBov* ov yao 
elkq Tijv pwadyatpav popet* Seow 
yde didKovéc éariv, ExdiKoc el¢ 
épyjv TO TO KaKdv TpdooorTt. 
Awd dvayKkn brordaceada, ov 
povov dia tiv dpynv, dAAd Kai 
dud Tv ovveidnow. Aid TovTO 
yap Kat popovg tedeite* Aet- 
Toupyo. yao Yeow eiavy eic avTo 
TOUTO TpookapTEpovvTec. *ATO- 
dote ovv mao Tac dpetAdc* TH 
TOv dopov Tov Popov: TH TO 
téhog TO TéAOG* TO TOV POGBov 


(Sxer. XII. 


who may exercise its functions. It is worthy of admiration that, writing 
on such a subject and under such a government as that of Nero, he could 
so restrain himself as to present general principles and abstract truths, 
without saying one word in the way of limitation or restraint. It is diffi- 
cult to avoid the conclusion, that he felt himself to be writing for the ben- 
efit of mankind in all future ages, and under the influence of a superhuman 
power. 

7. Pépoc means tax or tribute; téAo¢ duties, property tax paid for the 
support of the state ; @6Bo¢ and ti7, reverence and honour to superiors. 

8. “Owe:” Some prefer the indicative translation of the verb: ‘you 
owe’ &c., that is, the circle of your duties comprises nothing more than 
love. But the meaning given by the imperative is more probable, as it 
accords better with the preceptive nature of the context. The sentiment 
is: Let nothing be due from you but love, always regard yourselves as 
under obligation to cultivate mutual affection ; this debt can never be fully 
paid. Fulfilled :”” Comp. ver. 10. The use of this word to express 
sincere obedience, though it be imperfect, may illustrate the language in 
viii. 4. 

9. “If there be any other:” That is, whatever other there may be. 
Comp. Eph. iv. 29, Phil. iv. 8. 

11, 12. “ And this:” Most commentators suppose an ellipsis. Am- 
mon adds, “ ye are the rather bound to;” referring to the duty just incul- 
cated, Macknight understands, “I command,” making it the introduction 
of another precept. Grotius and after him Rosenmueller render it, “ es- 
pecially, so much the more;” Erasmus supplies, ‘‘ when ye know,” remark- 
ing that it strengthens the appeal: compare kai tavra in 1 Cor. vi. 8 


Cu. XIII. 4-11.] 


Opa hac 70n && brvov éyepd7- 
val’ vov yao &yyoTEpoy Tar 7 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


- 


that now 7 is high time to awake 
out of sleep: for now ?s our salva- 


219 


tov poBov: TO Tv TuyW7v THY honour. Owenomanany thing, but 8 
Tynv. Mydevi pndév ddeidete, to love one another: for he that 
el jun) TO GAAHAOVCE dyaTav- 6  lovethanother hath fulfilled the law. 
yap ayaT@v Tov EtEpov vouov For this, Thou shalt not commit 9 
metAnpwKe. TO yde: ov pot- adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou 
yevosic’ od ovevoerc’ ov shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear 
KAepercs odK éerudvunoerc* Kat false witness, Thou shalt not covet, 
el tic étépa EvTOAH, év TobTw and if there be any other command- 
T@ Adyw dvakepadaovTa, év ment, it is briefly comprehended in 
T@* adyanhoewe TOV TAnotov cov this saying, namely, Thou shalt 
10 @¢ éavtév. ‘H dydérn TO TAn- love thy neighbour as thyself. Love 10 
ciov Kakov ovK épydgerar* TAj- worketh no ill to his neighbour, 
11 pwua ovv véuov 4 dydrn. Kat therefore love is the fulfilling of the 
Tovto, eidétec Tov Kaipév, bt law. And that, knowing the time, 11 


Olshausen adds “so much the more.”—Here Koppe remarks that St. Paul, 
in order to urge his readers to the practice of the Christian virtues, adds 
this consideration: “that the return of Christ to earth was not remote, and 
that it would be accompanied by the tokens of a better and happier life.” 
He refers to his Excursus II. on Thessalonians* to show “ that the Apostles 
themselves, through the wise permission of divine Providence, cherished 
the opinion and hope of Christ’s speedy return.” Locke too expresses the 
same sentiment. “It seems by these two verses, as if St. Paul looked 
upon Christ’s coming as not far off, to which there are several other occurrent 
passages in his epistles. See 1 Cor. i. 17.” In opposition to this opinion 
the reader is referred to Whitby’s note on 2 Thess. iv. 15, and his “ Dis- 
course by way of inquiry” &c. appended to his annotations on 2nd Thessa- 
lonians. Neither this passage, nor any other in the Apostle’s writings, is 
sufficiently definite to prove that he entertained such a view, while others 
are not at all reconcilable with the theory. What he says in the 11th 
chapter respecting the present condition and future prospects of the Israel- 
ites, seems to imply that he expected a considerable space of time to elapse 
before the consummation of the events there spoken of, which, neverthe- 
less, must take place anterior to Christ’s second coming. And in his second 
epistle to the Thessalonians he expressly guards them against such a mis- 
construction of his sentiments. The view of Macknight and Rosenmueller 
that “ salvation” refers to the doctrine of the Gospel, and that it has been 
brought “nearer” to the mind, that is, is better understood and appre- 
ciated by the advanced Christian than it could be immediately after 
conversion, is feeble and improbable ; neither do the places quoted establish 


* See pp. 115 et seq. 


220 





tion nearer than when we believed. 
12 The night is far spent, the day is at 
hand: let us therefore cast off the 
works of darkness, and let us put 
13 on the armour of light. Let us 
walk honestly, as in the day; not 
in rioting and drunkenness, not in 
chambering and wantonness, not in 
14 strife and envying. But put ye on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make 
not provision for the flesh, to fulfil 
the lusts thereof. 
XIV. Him that is weak in the faith 
receive ye, but not to doubtful dis- 
2 putations. For one believeth that 
he may eat all things: another, 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. XII. 


owrnpia, i) Ore émvoretoaper, 
‘H wdé mpoéxorev, 4 Se Huépa 12 
yytkev* drodapueda ovv Ta 
tpya tov oKxbtove Kai évdvao- 
peda Ta Orda TOD dwréc. ‘Qe 13 
év juépa evoynudvac mEepiTari- 
OWLeV, [L7) KOoLE Kal WédaLC, [17) 
Koitaic Kal doedyeiatc, p17) bpioe 
Kai Gnaw* Gan’ évdboacd_e Tov 14 
Koptov "Inoovv Xpiorov, Kal ric 
oapko¢g mpovotav jun Troteiade elc¢ 
exidvpiac. 

Tov dé dodenotyvta tH XIV. 
miorer TpoohauBdveode, 7) ei¢ 
dvakpioetc Stadoytouov. “Oc ev 2 
moTeve. payeivy mdvTa, 6 dé 


such a meaning of the words. “Salvation” signifies here most probably 
the happiness on which the Christian enters immediately after death, and 
“night” in ver. 12, the present state of ignorance, sinfulness, and conse- 
quent unhappiness. Although the figure of night and day is strikingly 
descriptive of the condition of man before the reception of the Gospel and 
after, yet it is equally applicable to the Christian’s present and future con- 
dition. In this view it is here employed, and St. Paul is looking forward 
to the hour of death, as that which introduces future felicity. Thus, 
“nearer” will retain its usual meaning. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 6-8. 

13. The Apostle refers to inordinate gratification of the appetite, to 
licentious indulgence, and such passionate contentions as are their almost 
invariable attendants. 

14. “Put on:” The figure expresses the idea of being embued with the 
character of Christ. See the note on vi. 8, p. 97. 

xiv. In the Apostolic age, asceticism prevailed considerably among a 
certain class of heathen philosophers, and also particularly among the Essene 
Jews. This would, of course, exert an influence on the character and con- 
dition of some of the converts to Christianity. The feeling which governed 
weak consciences in reference to the right or propriety of using meats 
which had been publicly exhibited for sale, lest they should previously 
have been offered in sacrifice to idols, prevailed to a considerable degree. 
See the Apostle’s directions on this particular point in 1 Cor. viii. x. 25 
et seq. And, attachment to abrogated Jewish rites still lingered in the 
minds of many. All these circumstances were doubtless in view when the 
Apostle prepared the directions here embodied; and which apply, in a 
greater or less degree, to the various classes concerned, while they will 


Cu. XIII. 12-XIV.6.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


221 


Se 


3 dodevév Adyava éodiet. ‘O who is weak, eateth herbs. Let 3 
éodiwy tov pa eo8iovta 7} not him that eateth despise him 
étovdeveitw, Kat 6 py éodiwy that eateth not; and let not him 
tov éadiovta pi) Kptvétw* 6 which eateth not judge him that 
Yedc yao avrtov mpoceAdBero. eateth: for God hath received him. 

4 Sd tic el 6 Kpivwv dAAdtpioy Who art thou that judgest another 4 
olkétnv; T@ idiw Kvpiw oTAKec man’s servant? to his own master 
j) ninter* oTadhoetae dé* dv- he standeth or falleth. Yea, he 
vatoce ydo éottv 6 Sedc otjoat shall be holden up ; for God is able 

5 avrév. “Oc pév kpiver fépay to make him stand. One manes- 6 


Sy le nt x v4 ~ 
Tap’ nuépav, O¢ d& Kpiver Taoav 
juépav~ Exaotog év TH idiw vot 


teemeth one day above another ; 
another esteemeth every day alike. 


6 TAnpodopeiadw. ‘O ppova@y Tijv 
fuépav Kvpiw povet, Kai 6 ju7) 
gpovav tiv juépav Kupiw od 
dpover* Kal 6 éodiny Kupio 


Let every man be fully persuaded 
in his own mind. He that regard- 6 
eth the day, regardeth z¢ unto the 
Lord; and he that regardeth not 





always remain to the Christian church in all future ages wise and prac- 
tical principles directing its procedure in all indifferent matters. The 
general tenour of his remarks, and the respectful manner in which he 
refers to the class of persons indicated, prove that he has particularly in 
view the weak and scrupulous consciences of pious persons, somewhat 
under the control of education and former habits. Towards these he 
directs that a kind, forbearing, and conciliatory course should be pursued. 
His remarks are distinguished by a meekness and wisdom both admirable 
and characteristic. 

Ver. 1. “ Receive:” That is, with kindness and respect, not embarrass- 
ing with difficulties, but rather helping and supporting. The same verb is 
used in ver. 3 of God, and in xv. 7 of affectionate and friendly reception 
of each other, and of Christ’s favour to us.—“ Doubtful disputations :” 
Either, literally, “not to judgments of thoughts, that is, not so as to make 
oneself the judge of their thoughts and scruples :”* or, ‘not to distinctions 
of thoughts’ or ‘ discussions,’ that is, not so as to encourage nice discrimina- 
tions and distinctions in points of opinion which in themselves are really 
of but little importance. When will the Christian church learn to imbibe 
the deep yet simple wisdom of this great and good man ? 

4, What a depth of intellectual character and moral feeling is here! 
You man, do you presume to pass sentence in the case of another’s servant? 
What know you of its various circumstances? Have you taken the pains 
to ascertain them all? Are you even certain that you have the ability to 
do so? And if you have mastered the facts, can you put them all in the 
right balance and weigh them all with the most scrupulous accuracy, so as 


* Robinson Lex. 


222 COMMENTARY ON THE 


the day, to the Lord he doth not 
regard it. He that eateth, eateth 
to the Lord, for he giveth God 
thanks; and he that eateth not, to 
the Lord he eateth not, and giveth 
7 God thanks. For none of us liveth 
to himself, and no man dieth to 
8 himself. For whether we live, we 
live unto the Lord; and whether 
we die, we die unto the Lord: 
whether we live therefore, or die, 
9 we are the Lord's. For to this 
end Christ both died, and rose, and 
revived, that he might be Lord 
10 both of the dead and living. But 
why dost thou judge thy brother ? 
or why dost thou set at naught thy 
brother ? for we shall all stand be- 
fore the judgment seat of Christ. 
11 For it is written, As I live, saith 
the Lord every knee shall bow to 


(Seer, XII. 





éavier edyaptaret yap TO Yew’ 
kai 6 pr) eodiwy Kupiw ovK 
Eadiet, Kal evyaplotel TH eq. 
Ovdeig yao hav -avt@ CH, Kat 7 
ovdeig EavT@ drodvjoxe: édv 8 
Te yd Gomer, TH Kupiw Coper, 
édv Te drodviCKwper, TO Kvpiw 
drodvioKopev’ &av Te OvY CaLeEV, 
édv Te GTOUYHOKWILEV, TOD KUpLoV 
éonév. Ele tovto yap Xpiorog 9 
3 4 Ss Pe » 
dnédave Kai dvéorn Kai &naev, 
iva Kat vexpOv Kai Covrwv 
kupteton. Xd dé, Ti Kpiverc TOY 10 
ddeAdév aov; 7) Kati ov, Tt eov- 
Yeveic TOV ddEAdov aov; TavTEC 
yap tapaotnobmeda TO Bhware 
tov Xpiorov. Téypanra yao: 11 
GO éyd, Aéyer Kipioc, Gre euot 
kdpper av yovv, Kal Ta0a 
~ > 7 ~ ~ 

yA@ooa &ouodhoyjaetat TQ Bea. 

uv og o e~ s 
Apa ovy eKkaoTog muwy TEpt 12 


to bring out the right result? It is possible. But the Apostle intimates 
the only sensible course. Yield the decision to God. “Judge not, that 
ye be not judged.” Each man’s own conscience must, after all that has 
been said, influence him. Of course, his conscience must be rightly taught, 


regulated and directed. Then the divine precept applies: “ Let every one 
be fully persuaded in his own mind.” 

7-9. Here we have the reason of the directions before given, namely, 
that every true Christian, in imitation of his master, is devoted to the 
welfare of his fellows. It is not his own gratification, but their good, which 
he seeks. 

11, 12. The quotation is from Isa. xlv. 23, and agrees very nearly with 
the Septuagint. The prophet is speaking of the dissemination of true 
religion by means of the Gospel. He predicts the approaching period 
when all mankind will reject the worship of idols, and acknowledge and 
adore the only true God. St. Paul applies the text to the concluding act 
of Christ’s mediatorial authority, the exercise of his judicial office. This is 
comprehended within the prophet’s more general idea of submission and 
allegiance, which are ultimately to be universally rendered to Christ. 

13. The word “judge” is here employed in different meanings ; first, in 
that of censuring, condemning, and then of resolving. The figure is called 
antanaclasis, meaning, a repetition of the same word in a different sense. 
See Glassii Philologia Sacra his temporibus accommodata a D, Jo. Aug. 


Cn. XIV. 7-18.] 





éavtovd Aéyov dooe TO Ved. 
13 Myxére ob dAAHAovE Kpiveper * 
GAAG TOvTO KpivaTE PAAAOY, TO 
NN 4 Zz ws 9 ~ 
jun) TWWEVAL TPGOKOUUA TH GOEAPO 
14 7} oxdvdadov. Oida kat rréreL0- 
frat &v Kupiw "Inoov, dre oddév 
\ ? 0 ~ ? \ ~ 

Kotvov Ov avTov, él 47) TO Aoyt- 
Couév@ Te Kolvoy eivat, éxeiv@ 
15 xowvov. Hi dé did Bpadpa 6 

3 4 ~ Sis A 
adeAdog cov Avreitat, ovKETL 
kata aydnny TEpiTatelc’ [7 TO 
Bpdwart cov éxeivov amoAdve, 
16 drép ob Xproro¢g aréSave. Mz} 
BAaodnpeiodw odv bu@y TO dya- 
17 36v. Od yde gor % Baotdcia 
TOD YEov BpGote Kal TOaLC, GAAG 
dikatoobyvn Kat eipivn Kal yapa 
18 év mvebpate dyiw* 0 yao év 
TovTog dovAeiwyv TH XploT@ 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


228 





me and every tongue shall confess 
to God. So then every one of us 12 
shall give account of himself to God. 
Let us not therefore judge one an- 13 
other any more; but judge this 
rather, that noman put a stumbling- 
block or an occasion to fall in his 
brother’s way. I know, and am 14 
persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that 
there is nothing unclean of itself; 
but to him that esteemeth any 
thing to be unclean, to him it is 
unclean. But if thy brother be 15 
grieved with thy meat, now walk- 
est thou not charitably. Destroy 
not him with thy meat, for whom 
Christ died. Let not then your 16 
good be evil spoken of. For the 17 
kingdom of God is not meat and 
drink; but righteousness, and peace, 
and joy in the Holy Ghost. For 18 


Dathio, Lib. Il. Tract. II. Cap. iii. Tom. I. pp. 13842 et seq. Compare also 
8eiper and Peper in 1 Cor. iii. 17, and the xpetat with deexpidyre in 


James ii. 4. 
14. Comp. Tit. i. 15. 


15. “Destroy :” That is, do not set such an example as may tend 


to the ruin of one whom Christ died to redeem; do not expose him to 
the danger of destruction, by leading him to do what his conscience 
condemns. 

16. “Your good:” Either the Christian religion which you profess ; 
according to many both ancient and modern expositors: or, the right 
freedom of Christian character which you have attained; according to 
other weighty authorities. Either exposition gives a good sense, and agrees 
with the context; although the latter is perhaps to be preferred. Compare 
1 Cor. x. 29, 30, where the sentiment is the same: ‘Why should I so use 
my Christian liberty as to expose it to censure and condemnation by another 
conscience than my own? Why should I injudiciously expose myself to 
calumny on account of what I am thankful for ? 

17. “The kingdom of God ;” This phrase—which generally denotes the 
religious dispensation as established by the divine Messiah, limited occa- 
sionally to its imperfect condition on earth and occasionally to its glorious 
condition in Heaven, but frequently comprehending both these states—is 
sometimes, as here, employed to express the character of the dispensation 


he that in these things serveth 
Christ, is acceptable to God, and 
19 approved of men. Let us there- 
fore follow after the things which 
make for peace, and things where- 
20 with one may edify another. For 
meat destroy not the work of God. 
All things indeed are.pure ; but 
is evil for that man who eateth 
21 with offence. Jt 7s good neither to 
eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor 
any thing whereby thy brother 
stumbleth, or is offended, or is 
22 made weak. Hast thou faith? 
have 7 to thyself before God. 
Happy ts he that condemneth not 
himself in that thing which he al- 
23 loweth. And he that doubteth is 
damned if he eat, because he eateth 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE (Secr. XII, 





evdpeatoc 7H Ye Kal dbKipo¢ 
toi¢ dvdpwroic. “Apa oiv Ta 19 
Tie elpnync StOkopev Kal TA TIC 
olxodonng tie ele dAAHAovG. M7) 20 
Evexev Bp@pwatoc Katddve TO 
épyov tov Yeov. Ildvta pév 
Kkadapa* GAAd Kakdv TG) avdpo- 
TO TO Ola TPOCKOpLATOC EdVi- 
ovtt. Kadov 70 pi) payeiv Kpéa, 21 
nde tueiv olvov, unde &v @ 
adeApo¢ cov TpookdrTet 7) CKaV- 
darigerat 7) dodevei. Ld riot 22 
&yetc* KaTa CeavTov eye EvaTLOV 
Tov Yeov" paKdptoc 6 117) Kpivwv 
éavtov év @ doxiyudger, 'O dé 23 
Svakptvopevoc, édv ddyy, KaTa- 
Kéxpitat, btt ovK ex TioTews* 
Trav dé 0 obk ék TioTEWws, dwapTia 
éoriv. 


not of faith: for whatsoever zs not 
of faith is sin. 


as spiritual, and consequently removed from whatever is essential to 
material and temporal existence. Hence our Lord says: “The kingdom 
of God is within you:” Luke xvii. 21. The characteristic of Christianity 
is chiefly internal, consisting in righteousness and its accompanying divine 
satisfactions. The lesson conveyed by these passages is all important, and 
its truth and deep meaning will be appreciated and felt just in proportion 
as we learn to understand the sublime elevation of Christianity. 

20-23. “The work of God” expresses the Christian character wrought 
in the soul by divine agency. ‘“ With offence :” dvd tpookduparoc’ The 
preposition expresses the idea of along with or notwithstanding. Comp. 
ii. 27 and note there, pp. 41, 42. It is bad for a man to eat, if by so 
doing he places a stumbling-block in his brother’s way.—* Faith” is 
equivalent to sound conviction of a Christian mind. The Apostle’s diree- 
tion is given to the Christian who is not embarrassed by scruples respecting 
matters of indifference. He is not to use his liberty so as to endanger the 
religious character of a weak brother, by setting him an example which he 
may be induced unlawfully to imitate. ‘Although indeed all kinds of food 
may properly be eaten, yet if by so doing a man induces another to eat 
against the suggestions of his weak conscience, he becomes the occasion and 
in some sense the cause of sin; and whoever eats in opposition to his con- 
victions, sins and subjects himself to condemnation.’ 

Griesbach and a few editors, led by some ancient authorities introduce 


VG 


Cu. XIV. 19-XV. 6.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


'OdeiAouev dE tsic ob 
‘ NN | Be 7 ~ 
dvvatot Tad dodevnuata THY 
ddvvdtwy Baordgery Kat jr 
éavtoig dpéoxetv. "“Exaotoc¢ 


225 





We then that are strong ought XV. 


to bear the infirmities of the weak, 
and not to please ourselves. Let 
every one of us please Ais neigh- 


2 


quay Tq TAnoiov dpeckéTw el¢ dour for his good to edification. For 3 
TO dyadov mpd¢ oikodomyv. Kat even Christ pleased not himself ; but 
yae 6 Xpioro¢ ovy EavT@ 7jpecev, as it is written, The reproaches of 
aAAd, Kado yéypantat* of them that reproached thee fell on 
dvetdtowot THY dvEerdigdvTwY o& me. For whatsoever things were 4 
énémecov én’ éué. "“Ooa yde written aforetime were written for 
Tpoeypagn, sig tiv dpeTépav our learning, that we through 
diackahiav mpoeypddn, iva dia patience and comfort of the Scrip- 
THC UTOMOVAC Kal THC TapakAj- tures might have hope. Now the 5 
sews THY ypadav tiv éArida God of patience and consolation 
éyapev. ‘O d& Sede Tij¢ brouo- grant you to be like-minded one to- 
vag Kat tig TtapakAjoewc On ward another, according to Christ 
vuiv 76 avto dpoveiv év GAAH- Jesus; that ye may with one mind 6 


Aotg Kata Xptorov "Inoovy, iva 


and one mouth glorify God, even 


opodvpadov év Evi orduate dog- the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
the doxology in xvi. 25-27 at the end of this chapter. From the circum- 
stance that it is found in these different connections in certain ancient 
manuscripts, and also from supposed internal evidence, and its similarity 
to the doxology which terminates the Epistle of St. Jude, some doubts 
have been expressed respecting its genuineness. But the objections are of 
little or no weight, and the best critics agree that its proper position is at 
the end of the Epistle. The hypothesis of Semler, that the 15th and 16th 
chapters were not a part of the Epistle as originally written by St. Paul, 
nor intended for the Romans, but addressed to other persons by the Apos- 
tle, and afterwards connected with this Epistle, is examined by Koppe in 
his second Excursus. As might be supposed, it is wholly destitute of any 
historical and critical foundation, and depends almost entirely on surmises 
and conjecture. 

xv. 2. ‘In endeavouring to gratify one another, let each aim at mutual 
improvement.’ 

3. See Ps. lxix. 9, in the Sept. Ixviii. 10. The Psalm has an ultimate 
reference to Christ and his enemies, and is therefore not properly accom- 
modated. The quotation belongs to the third class. See the Commentary 
on Hebrews, pp. 25, 26. 

4. “Of the Scriptures:” That is, arising from the views of religious 
truth which they present to us. 

5.. “To be like-minded ;” to agree together: Comp. Phil. ii. 2.—‘ Ac- 
cording to Christ :” Elliptical for, according to the will of Christ. Comp. 
viii. 27. 

15 


226 





7 Wherefore receive ye one another, 
as Christ also received us, to the 
& glory of God. Now I say that 
Jesus Christ was a minister of the 
circumcision for the truth of God, 
to confirm the promises made unto 
9 the fathers; and that the Gentiles 
might glorify God for his mercy ; as 
it is written, For this cause J will 
confess to thee among the Gentiles, 
10 and sing unto thy name. And 
again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, 
11 with his people. And again, Praise 
the Lord, all ye Gentiles ; and laud 
12 him, all ye people. And again 
Esaias saith, There shall be a root 
of Jesse, and he that shall rise to 
reign over the Gentiles, in him 
13 shall the Gentiles trust. Now the 
God of hope fill you with all joy 
and peace in believing, that ye may 
abound in hope, through the power 
of the Holy Ghost. 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


[Sxor. XII. 





dgnre tov Yedv Kai ratépa Tov 
kuptov juav’Inood Xprorov. Aw 7 
mpocdauBdveade GAAjAovc, Ka- 
9a¢ Kal 6 Xpiorbce tposeAdBero 
ipac ele ddtav Jeov. Aéyw dé, 8 
"Inaovv Xpiarov didKovov yeyev- 
jodar mepitoure bree dAnsetac 
Seov, ele TO BeBaoa Td¢ 
érayyesiag TOV Tatépwr, Ta 9 
dé £9vn b7é0 éA€ove Sosdoat TOV 
Sedv, Kadac yéypanta: dia 
rovTo ékouodoyfoowat ao év 
f9veot, Kal 7TH dvduaTi gov 
warG. Kat mddAw déyer* ev- 10 
gpdvdnre *9dvn peta TOU Aaov 
avrov. Kai mdi: aiveite Tov 11 
Kiplov mavra Ta evn, Kal éxay- 
éoate avtov mavtec ol Aaoi. 
Kal mdAv ‘Hoaiac Aéyer* Eorat 12 
7 pita Tov "leaoai, Kai 6 dviora- 
pevocg apxyev edvGv* éx’ avdT@ 
é9vn EAmuovew. ‘O dé Bede tij¢ 13 
tAridog tAnpwoat buac mdonc 
xapac Kai elpnvng év TH TLoTED- 
evv, elg TO TEplocevery buac ev 
Ty éAmide év Svvduwer tvebparoe 
ayiov. 


6. “God, even the Father:” Or, ‘the God and Father.’ See Eph. i. 


3, 17. 


8 et seq. “Of the circumcision :” Meaning, of the Jews, as in iii. 30. 


The Apostle represents Christ as sent, first for the benefit of the Jews, in 
order to establish God’s fidelity by accomplishing the promises made to 
the patriarchs; and also, in order that the Gentiles should become united 
with the ancient covenant people, and both join harmoniously in praising 
God for his goodness in sending the Saviour. The divine purpose of 
extending Messiah’s kingdom among the Gentiles is a prominent idea in 
his mind. The quotations, which agree very nearly with the Septuagint, 
are from Ps. xvii. 50, Deut. xxxii. 43, Ps. exvil. 1, and Isa, xi. 10, accord- 
ing to the notation of Breitinger. In the last passage the general meaning 
of the Hebrew is preserved, although the version is not literal. 

14, 15. “In some sort:” Literally, ‘in part.’ The Apostle tells the 
Roman church, that, although in some parts of his Epistle, he has very 
freely urged right views of Christian truth and duty; yet, he regards their 


Cu. XV. 7-18.] 


14 Tlérrevopar 0é, ddeA dot jrov, Kat 
abroc &y@ Trept bur, dT Kai av- 
Tol wecTot ETE Gyadwovrne, TE- 
TAnpwpévor Taong yraoewc, dv- 

4 re 9. 7 ~ 
vajevot kat dAAHAoVS VouUdeETeELy. 

15 ToAunporepov d& é&ypara wpiv, 

> 4 > X\ 4 ©: BJ 

adeAgot, a0 pépove, wo éETava- 
uluvnoKkwr tudc, dia TY yYapLv 
thy dodetody jot bTO TOV Yeov, 

16 ei¢ 76 elvai we Aevtovpyov *Inood 
Xpiorov eic ta Evy, tepovp- 
youvra TO evayyéALov Tov Seod, 
iva yévntat 4 Tpoohopa THY 
edvOv evr pbadeKtoc, Hytaopévn 

17 év mvetuatt ayiw. "Eyw ovv 

a bd tom et | ~ XN 
Kavynow ev Xptot@ *Inoov ta 

18 mpdc Tov Yedv~ ov yap TOALHOW 
Aadeiv TL OV ov KaTELpydoaTto 
Xpioto¢g Jv gov ei¢g braKonyv 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


227 


And I myself also am persuaded 14 
of you, my brethren, that ye also 
are full of goodness, filled with all 
knowledze, able also to admonish 
one another. Nevertheless, breth- 15 
ren, I have written the more boldly 
unto you in some sort, as putting 
you in mind, because of the grace 
that is given unto me of God, that 16 
I should be the minister of Jesus 
Christ to the Gentiles, ministering 
the gospel of God, that the offering 
up of the Gentiles might be accept- 
able, being sanctified by the Holy 
Ghost. I have therefore whereof I 
may glory through Jesus Christ in 
those things which pertain to God. 
For I will not dare to speak of 18 
any of those things which Christ 


pany 
1 





religious state as worthy of high commendation. Comp. i. 8,12. St. Paul 
had never been at Rome, and this circumstance, together with his well 
known principle of not intruding into the ministerial sphere of others, might 
prompt him to express himself in terms explanatory, at least, if not some- 
what apologetic. See 18-20. 

16, “The minister—ministering :” These words do not express the full 
force of the original. The former Aectoupydy, is indeed a general term 
denoting a person who performs public services whether civil or ecclesias- 
tical, and both the noun and the corresponding verb are frequently used in 
the Septuagint of the priests and their services. The latter /epovpyovvra, 
means nothing else than offering a sacrifice, acting as a priest. The whole 
declaration is a striking and beautiful figure. St. Paul represents himself 
as a priest of Jesus Christ, acting in this capacity in respect to the Gospel 
for the benefit of the Gentiles, whom he offers up as an acceptable oblation 
to God. He employs the same figure in Phil. ii. 17: “If I be offered upon 
the sacrifice and service of your faith;” that is, ‘if I be poured out as a 
libation upon the sacrifice of your faith and obedience.’ The reception of 
the Gospel by the Philippians, their dedication of themselves thereby to 
God, is regarded by the Apostle in the light of an acceptable oblation, and 
his death on account of his efforts in the cause of Christ, as a libation or 
drink-offering poured out upon it. Isaiah had employed the same meta- 
phorical style in reference to the conversion of the heathen, and it is very 
probable that our author had his mind upon the passage. “They shall 
bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations to 


228 


COMMENTARY ON THE 


(Seer. XII, 





hath not wrought by me, to make 
the Gentiles obedient, by word and 
19 deed, through mighty signs and 
wonders, by the power of the Spirit 
of God; so that from Jerusalem, 
and round about unto Illyricum, I 
have fully preached the gospel of 
20 Christ. Yea, so have I strived to 
preach the gospel, not where Christ 
was named, lest I should build upon 
21 another man’s foundation : but, as 
it is written, To whom he was not 
spoken of, they shall see, and they 
that have not heard shall under- 
22 stand. For which cause also I 
have been much hindered from 
23 coming toyou. But now having no 
more place in these parts, and hav- 
ing a great desire these many years 
24 to come unto you; whensoever I 
take my journey into Spain, I will 
come to you: for I trust to see you 
in my journey, and to be brought 
on my way thitherward by you, if 
first I be somewhat filled with your 
25 company. But now I go unto Jeru- 
salem, to minister unto the saints. 
26 For it hath pleased them of Macedo- 
nia and Achaia to make a certain 
contribution for the poor saints 
which are at Jerusalem. It hath 
pleased them, verily; and their 
debtors they are. For if the Gen- 


27 


~ 


b0vOv, Abyw Kal tpyw, év dvvd- 19 
fet onueiwy Kal Tepdtwr, &v 
Svvduet Tvebjatoc ayiov, Gore 
pe drd "lepovoaAnu Kat Kbnrw 
peypte TOD "IAAvpiKod TeTAnpwK- 
évat 70 ebayyédtov Tov Xptorov* 
ovTw d& didoTimotpevov evayye- 20 
Aigeodar, ody brov wvoudodn 
Xptoréc, iva pu ex’ dAdObTpLov 
VeuedLov oiKodon@, GAA Kada¢ 21 
yéypanrat* aig ovK dvnyyéAn 
Tept avTov, dorrat, kai ot obk 
dknkoact, ovvijcovar. Ato Kai 22 
évexonTounv Ta TOAAG TOD £A- 
Veiv Tpd¢ Dudc. Nvvi dé unkéte 23 
Torov Eywv év ToI¢ KAipaat TOd- 
Tole, erimodiav J& éywv TOV EA- 
Veivy mpdc tudo dnd TOAA@V 
éT@v, oc &dv Tropedwpat ele Tijy 24 
Lraviay, éArigw dvaTopevomevog 
Vedoao9a iac Kai dd’ duov 
mpotreupdjvar exel, av Duov 
Tp@Tov ad pépove éuTAnodo. 
Nvvi d& tropevouat ei¢ ‘Tepovaa- 25 
Ane Ovakovov Toi¢ ayiow. Ev- 26 
doxnoav yde Makedovia Kai 
*Ayaia Kolvwviay TIVa ToLhCaAO- 
dat cig TOG TTWYOVE TOV dyiwY 
TOV év lepovoadnp, Evdéxnoav 27 
yao, kai dperdérac adtov slow: 
el yap Tol¢ mvEevpaTiKoic avT@v 
éxowvovncav Ta ESvN, ddeidAovat 
kai &v Toi¢ oapkiKoi¢ AEiToup- 


my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring 
an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also 
take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord:” Isa. Ixvi. 20, 21. 
The priest and the offering are alike figurative, and the idea conveyed is 
that of entire dedication of both to the service of God. 

19. “ Have fully preached ;” This is the proper translation of the word 
meTAnowKévat. It is derived, however, from the context, as is the case in 
several other instances. See the note on viii. 4, p. 128. 

21. See Isa. lii. 15, Sept. 

24. This passage expresses St. Paul’s intention to go to Spain; but 


that he accomplished this purpose is uncertain. The supposition that he 


Cx. XV. 19-XVI. 2.] 


28 yjoat ad~-oic. Tovro ov érited- 
éoac, Kal odpaytoduevoc adtoic 
TOV KapTSv TOUTOY, dTEAEvoouaL 

29 dV ipayv ei¢ THY Xtaviav, Oida 
dé, Ott Epyomevog mpoc¢ buadc év 
TAnpopmare evhoyiac Tod evayye- 
Aiov tov Xprorod éAevoouar. 

30 Ilapaxadd dé buac, dderdot, dia 
TOV Kupiov Tua@v ‘Inoov Xprorov 
kat dua TI dydrn¢ TOD TrEbpa- 
ToC, ovvaywvicaddat jot ev Tai¢ 
mpocevyaic brép euov mpo¢ TOV 

31 Jedv, iva pvo9G azo TOV areEt- 
Sotvtwy év TH lovdaia, Kat iva 
7 Stakovia jov 7 ic ‘lepovoadArju 
evTpbodextog =yévntat = Toi 

32 dyiowg: iva év yapa tA3w zpo¢ 
duacg dia YeAnuatog Yeov Kat 

33 ovvavaratowna tyiv. ‘O dé 
Seoe TIC elpivng wEeTa TAVTWOV 
DUaY. Gun. 


XVI. Svviornue dé tpiv Poi- 
Bnv, THY deAdijy judy, ovcav 
dudkovov tig ExxAnoiacg Tio év 
Keyxpeaic, iva avtiv mpoodéé- 
nove év Kupiw akiwe TOV dyiwv 
kal TapaoraTe att év @ dv 
DuaY Ypnsy Tpdypwate: Kal yao 
avTi TpoaTatic TOAAGY éyevi On 


to 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


229 


tiles have been made partakers of 
their spiritual things, their duty is 
also to minister unto them in carnal 
things. When, therefore, I have 28 
performed this, and have scaled 

to them this fruit, I will come 
by you into Spain. And I am 29 
sure that, when I come unto you, I 
shall come in the fulness of the 
blessing of the gospel of Christ. 
Now I beseech you, brethren, for 30 
the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and 
for the love of the Spirit, that ye 
strive together with me in your 
prayers to God for me; that I may 31 
be delivered from them that do not 
believe in Judea; and that my ser- 
vice which ZI have for Jerusalem 
may be accepted of the saints; 
that I may come unto you with joy 32 
by the will of God, and may with 
you be refreshed. Now the God of 33 
peace be with you all. Amen. 

I commend unto you Phebe XVI. 
our sister, which is a servant of the 
church which is at Cenchrea; that 2 
ye receive her in the Lord, as be- 
cometh saints, and that ye assist 
her in whatsoever business she hath 
need of you: for she hath been a 
succourer of many, and of myself 


did, assumes the theory of a second imprisonment at Rome, and rests 
chiefly on a passage of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 5. The 
theory is doubtful, and the text of Clement obscure. 

28. “Sealed to them this fruit:” In other words, secured this benefit to 


them. 


xvi. It may be thought extraordinary that St. Paul should send so 


many salutations as this chapter contains to individuals in a city which 
he had never visited. But it must be remembered that Rome was a place 
of general resort, and several of the persons here mentioned may not have 
been permanent residents of the great metropolis, and have become known 
to the Apostle elsewhere; and also that several were, in all probability, 
not personal acquaintances, but known to him solely from their Christian 
character. 


? 


230 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. XII. 

3 also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, «at avrov éuod. ‘Aondoacde 3 

4 my helpers in Christ Jesus; who Ilpioxay nai ’Akddav, trode ovv- 
have for my life laid down their epyovg pov év Xprat@ “Iqaod, 
necks: unto whom not only I give (oltuvee bree tic wWexijg pov 4 
thanks, but also all the churches of Ov éavT@v tpdyndov i7édyKaY, 

5 the Gentiles. Likewise greet the ol¢ ox éy® povocg edyaploTa, 
church that isin their house. Salute dAAd Kai maoa ai éxKAnoiat 
my well beloved Epenetus, who is T@v é9v@v,) Kal tiv Kat’ oiKov 5 
the first-fruits of Achaia unto adT@v éxxAnoiav. *Aondoaode 

6 Christ. Greet Mary who bestowed ’Eraiverov, tov dyamnréy pov, 

7 much labour on us. Salute And- 6¢ éortv dmapy7 Tij¢ ’Aciac ei¢ 
ronicus and Junia, my kinsmenand Xpiorév. “Aondoaode Mapidp, 6 
my fellow-prisoners, who are of #jtTi¢ ToAAd éxoriacev eic¢ nudc. 
note among the apostles; who also “Aotwdoaode "Avdpévixov Kal 7 

8 were in Christ before me. Greet “Iovviav, rove ovyyeveic pov Kal 
Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. ovvaryyadwtove pov, oltivéc 
Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ; elow érionwor év toic dxoot6- 

10 and Stachys my beloved. Salute Adovc, of Kai mpd éuov yeyovaoy 
Apelles, approved in Christ. Salute éy Xprot@. ’Aomdoacde "Au 8 
them which are of Aristobulus’ mAiav, Tov dyatnTév pov éy 

11 household. Salute Herodion my kupiw. ’Aordoaode OvpBavov, 9 
kinsman. Greet them that be of TOv ovvepydv quay év XpioTq, 


the household of Narcissus, which 


Ss 4 \ ’ 7 
Kal XLTayVY, TOV GyaTnTOV [LOv. 


’"Aotdoacde ’ATeAATY, TOV d6K- 10 


yuov év Xpiotd. *Aondoaade 
Tove &k TOY *AptoTroBodAov., 


’Aordoaade ‘Hpwdiwva, tov ovy- 11 


3. Comp. Acts xviii. 2, 18, 26, 2 Tim. iv. 19. 
4. “Laid down their own necks:” A figure denoting exposure to great 
danger. 
5. “The church that is in their house:” Either, their Christian family ; 


or, more probably, the body of Christians that habitually worshipped at 
their residence. In the larger cities where the number of converts was 
considerable, they would be compelled to meet for religious services in 
private houses, until circumstances allowed them to unite in some one 
convenient locality. — Achaia :” The true reading is probably Asia, mean- 
ing proconsular Asia, as the word is used in Acts ii. 9, of which Ephesus 
was the capital. Thus the statement here made that Epenetus was the 
first Christian convert of this province will not conflict with that of 1 Cor. 
xvi, 15, where “the house of Stephanas” is called “the first-fruits of Achaia.” 

7. “Of note among the Apostles :” Some explain thus: ‘Who are of 
high estimation with the Apostles, greatly honoured by them.’ But, as 
Tholuck remarks, St. Paul would probably have expressed this idea by 
some such phrase as, “ throughout all the churches.” See 2 Cor. viii. 18. 


Cu. XVI. 8-18.] 


EPISTLE TO THE 


ROMANS. 


231 





yevn ov. "“Aandoacde Tove éx 
t@v Napkisoov, tov¢ dvtag év 
Kupiw. *Aotdoacde Tptparvav 
kat Tpvd@oar, tag KoTLdoac év 
kupiw.  ‘Aotdoaode Tepoida, 
THY ayanynrTHy, ijtl¢ TOAAG éxo- 
13 miaoev ev Kupiw. ‘Aotdoacde 

‘Povdor, Tov éxAextov év Kupio, 

kal TV pnTépa adTov Kal euod. 
14 ’Aomdoaode ’AovyKpitoyv, Aé- 

yovra, ‘Epuay, ILatpéBav, ‘Ep- 

unv Kat Tove odv avtotc dded- 
15 dotc. “Aordoacde PiAddoyov 
kat “lovAiav, Nnpéa kai tiv 
addeAdijy avtod Kat ’OAvurav 
Kat Tov¢ odv avtoic TavTac 
ayiove. “Aotdoacde aAAnAove 
év didnuatt dyiw. ’Aomagovtat 
tudo ai ekkAnotat maoat Tov 
Xpiatov. 

Ilapakaa® d& duaic, ddeAdot, 
okoTEiv TovG Ta¢ dLyooTactac 
kal Ta oKdvdaka Tapa THY dL0a- 
xnVv, Hv vusic Euddete, ToLovy- 
Tac, Kat éxkAivate dm’ adtov. 
18 Oi yde ToLvodvToL TO Kupiw Tuov 

Xpiot@ ov dovdsiovay, dada 


12 


16 


17 


~ 


are in the Lord. Salute Tryphena 
and Tryphosa, who labour in the 
Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, 
which laboured much in the Lord. 
Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord ; 
and his mother and mine. Salute 
Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Pat- 
robas, Hermes, and the brethren 
which are with them. Salute Philo- 
logus, and Julia, Nereus, and his 
sister, and Olympas, and all the 
saints which are with them. Salute 
one another with an holy kiss. The 
churches of Christ salute you. 


Now I beseech you, brethren, 
mark them which cause divisions 
and offences contrary to the doc- 
trine which ye have learned ; and 
avoid them. For they that are 
such serve not our Lord Jesus 
Christ, but their own belly; and 


12 


16 


18 


The usual translation gives the meaning of the Greek, and probably these 
persons were apostles, though not in the highest sense of the word. It was 
certainly applied to others besides the twelve. See Acts xiv. 4, 14, where 
it is used of Barnabas as well as of St. Paul; also 2 Cor. viii. 28, Phil. ii. 
25, and Rey. ii. 2. Compare Bishop White’s Lectures on the Church 
Catechism, Dissertation X. pp. 488-440. 

15. “ His mother and mine :” This is expressive of deep affection, pro- 
duced probably by proofs of maternal love shown to the Apostle by the 
parent of Rufus. Comp. Matt. xii. 49, John xix. 26, and the Iliad, vi. 
429, 430. 

16. In the primitive church the kiss was a token of peace and mutual 
Christian affection. Its use was not indiscriminate: but, as we read in the 
Apostolical Constitutions, “ the men saluted one another, and the women 
those of their own sex.” Lib. II. Cap. 57 ad fin. Edit. Coteler. Ant. 1700, 
vol. i. pp. 264, 265. 

19. This suggests a motive to comply with the preceding direction, and 
thus to maintain the reputation for obedience which had already been 


232 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. XIL 
by good words and fair speeches Ti favT@v Kotdia, Kai dia Tij¢ 
deceive the hearts of the simple. ypyotodoyiac Kal ebAoyiag ééa- 

19 For your obedience is come abroad tat@ot Tag Kapdiac TOV dKadKwr. 
unto all men. Iam glad therefore ‘H yde dydv iraKo7 ele mdvrac 19 
on your behalf: but yet I would ddixeto* yaipw ovy 70 é’ byiv, 
have you wise unto that which is éAw dé bude aopod¢e pév eivat 
good, and simple concerning evil. el¢ 7d dyad6v, dxepaiove dé el¢ 

20 And the God of peace shall bruise 7d Kaxdv. ‘O 68 Yedc¢ Tic elpf- 20 
Satan under your feet shortly. The vy¢ ovytpinper tov oaravay id 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be rode wédac iuOv év raéyer. 'H 


with you. Amen. xapic TOD Kupiov Fpuav "Inood 
21 Timotheus my work-fellow, and Xpiorov pew budv. 
Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my ’Aordlovrat tuac Tynddeoc, 6 21 


22 kinsmen, salute you. 1 Tertius, who guvepyéc¢ pov, kat Aotkioc Kal 
wrote this epistle, salute youinthe "Idawv kai Xwoirarpoc, ol avy- 

23 Lord. Gaius mine host, and of the yeveic pov. ‘Aomdfouat buac 22 
whole church, saluteth you. Erastus éye) 'Téptioc, 6 ypdyacg tiv érto- 
the chamberlain of the city saluteth toAjv, év Kupiw. "Aondgerat 23 

24 you, and Quartus a brother. The dyuac Tdioc, 6 tévoc pov Kai Tij¢ 


acquired.—* Simple :” Or, inoffensive, “harmless,” as the marginal read- 
ing is. 

20. This is figurative for, ‘will speedily give you victory over your 
spiritual foes.’ Some have supposed an allusion to Gen. iii. 15, which is 
very probable. If so, the Apostle’s mind must have dwelt upon the 
Hebrew and Chaldee meaning “ bruise,” rather than the Septuagint transla- 
tion ‘ watch for.’ 

21-24. It has been thought strange that St. Paul, after having brought 
his salutations to an apparent close in ver. 16, and invoked a blessing on 
the Roman church in ver. 20, should resume the salutations; and that 
Tertius his amanuensis should interpose his own between two of the author’s. 
Some critics have inferred that these verses are an appendage not written 
by the Apostle; others that they were added by him, with the exception 
of ver. 22, to fill a vacancy in an additional piece of parchment which con- 
tained the doxology of vs. 25-27. It is impossible to arrive at any 
certainty on such points. Some trifling circumstances, unknown to us, 
may have caused the author to append certain salutations here which would 
have been more regularly incorporated among the others. It has been 
conjectured that Tertius was the author of the whole portion from 21 to 24 
inclusive. But even then the insertion of his name between those of others 
still remains unexplained. His salutation may have been originally written 
in the margin, and at an early age transferred out of place into the text. 
Or, while writing under the Apostle’s dictation, Tertius may have intro- 


On. XVI. 19-27.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 238 





éxkAnotag GAnc. | Aomdetat grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be 
tuac "Epaoroc, 6 oikovduocg THC with youall. Amen. 
méAewe, Kat Kotaproc 6 dded- Now to him that is of power to 25 
24 hdc. “H ydpig Tov Kvpiov 7juGv establish you according to my gos- 
*Inoov Xptotov peta mdvTwv pel and the preaching of Jesu 
buov. amv. Christ, according to the revelation 
25 Te dé dvvapévw bude ornpigae of the mystery, which was kept 
kata TO evayyédév jov Kai TO secret since the world began, but 26 
Kipvywa *inoovd Xptorov, kata now is made manifest, and by the 
dmokdAvyy jevotnpiov ypovorg scriptures of the prophets, accord- 
26 alwviowg ceovynuévov, pavepw- ing to the commandment of the 
Sévtoc dé vov, did TE ypadGyv everlasting God, made known to all 
mpoontiK@v Kat’ émutayiyv tov nations for the obedience of faith; 
alwviov Yeov el¢ brakoiy Tio- to God only wise, be glory, through 27 
tewe ele Tévta Ta EYVN yvwpto- Jesus Christ, for ever. Amen. 
27 Sévtoc, pdvw copa Ved, Jia 
"Igoov Xptorov, © 7 ddga ei¢ 
Tove aldvac* awh. 


duced his own name on account of being, as Tholuck suggests, connected in 
some way with those just before named. 

25. “My Gospel :” Comp. ii. 16 and note, p. 88.-—“Since the world 
began :” Locke, who is followed by Macknight, attempts to explain this 
phrase of “the times under the law,” referring for proof to 2 Tim. i. 9, 
Tit. i. 2, Luke i. '70, Acts iii. 21, 1 Cor. ii. 7, x. 11, Eph. iii. 9, Col. i. 26, 
ard Heb. ix. 26, not one of which is to the point. Dr. Samuel Lee of 
Cambridge also refers to some of these texts in order to sustain his extra- 
vagant interpretation of the phrase “ before the foundation of the world” in 
1 Pet. i. 20, and some other similar places, which he regards as equivalent 
to “before the Jewish polity had a being,” before the establishment of the 
Hebrew church or the exode from Egypt. Thus he says the call and 
choice of Abraham, meaning the historical event in the patriarch’s life, did 
“in the style of Scripture precede the foundation of the world.”*—The 
literal meaning of the above phrase is ‘ from eternal times,’ that is, from all 
past ages, which our English translation expresses, and which appears also 
in some of the references above given. 

26. “By the scriptures of the prophets:” Partly by means of them, 
and partly in accordance with their attestations. Comp. iii, 21.—“ Obedi- 
ence of faith:” The same phrase as in i. 5. 

27. The English translation, following Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva 
and Beza, omits the @. The omission certainly frees the doxology from an 
embarrassment which otherwise attaches to it. But the external evidence 


* See his First Dissertation annexed to his Six Sermons on the study of the Holy Scriptures, Sect, 
viii. pp. 56-60, Lond, 1830, 


234 COMMENTARY, ETC. [Szer. XII, 


Written to the Romans from Corinthus, Ilpdc¢ ‘Papaiove typagn dard Kopividov 
and sent by Phebe, servant of the church did boinc, rig Staxdvov rig ev Keyxpeai¢ 
at Cenchrea, éxkAnoiac. 


is altogether in favour of the reading. The verse resumes what had been 
begun in the 25th. If the relative be retained, however, the sentence 
appears to be incomplete, as the translation will be, “to the only wise 
God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever: Amen.” The 
Apostle seems to commence a doxology to God, as in Eph. iii, 20, through 
Christ, and then to ascribe it to Christ himself. Some authorities substitute 
av7@ in the place of @, or regard this as an anacoluthon* and translate zo hum. 
Olshausen accedes to the view of Glockler, a late German critic, who 
understands the verb ovviornju. ‘The verse will then read thus: ‘To the 
only wise God Z commend you through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory 
forever; and the doxology will relate to Christ. The reference in it to 
making known the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the statement that this 
accords with the declarations in the prophetic Scriptures, are strikingly in 
harmony with one prominent thought which pervades the whole Epistle. 


* This is a Rhetorical term meaning, want of sequence. It is applied to clauses where, through 
the mode of construction or the choice of words, some grammatical inaccuracy bas occurred. It is 
derived from the negative a and dxoAouVéw, to follow 


THE END. 


AP DE Ns Ee Be es 


NOTE. 


THE following questions have been prepared with the view of 
assisting the reader of the Commentary in acquiring an accurate 
knowledge of its contents, and thereby of the meaning and fulness 
of a most important portion of the inspired volume. A careful 
examiner of the questions will be able to determine, whether the 
answers to be found in the work do, if satisfactory, contain impor- 
tant Christian and theological information. The author cannot but 
think that they may be made useful, not only to exegetical classes 
in theological seminaries, but also to Christians generally, who 
read the Bible, not simply to get through with it every year, but 
also to “mark, learn, and inwardly digest” its truths. The more 
intelligent Bible classes also may find in the answers to these ques- 
tions elucidations of scriptural doctrines and facts, which are of the 
highest importance and deepest practical influence. I acknowledge, 
what has been remarked in a Review, that I have “ written for the 
benefit of those who really wish to understand the sacred volume, 
and are willing to this end to take the trouble of thinking” and 
studying. And I will cherish the hope that among educated Chris- 
tians there will always be found some, who are willing to take such 
trouble in order to gain a competent acquaintance with the word 
of God. That a very few portions of the Commentary require a 
knowledge of the Greek text, need not deter the merely English 
reader from a general study of it. In almost all cases, he will be 
able to ascertain the meaning. 


GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
December 20, 1853. 


APPHNDYX. 


QUESTIONS ON THE PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 


The reader is requested to observe that the page is noted immediately after the questions founded on it. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Wuar was St. Paul’s native place? family condition? early training ? 
standing in Jewish learning and character? Is it probable that before his 
conversion he knew anything of our Lord’s claims, teachings, acts, and re- 
ligious system ? ix.—Did his religious and intellectual training prepare 
him in any degree for the course to which he was afterwards called? Is 
there any reason to think that he felt the spiritual inadequacy of the 
Jewish system, before his miraculous call? x. xii—Give some account of 
the origin of the Church of Rome.—Does the address of the leading Jews 
to him on his arrival at Rome prove that the Christian community in that 
city was then unknown to them, or in itself unimportant ? xi.—Is there 
sufficient reason to think that in the church of Rome two antagonistic 
parties then existed, Jewish and Gentile; and that the main object of the 
Epistle was to reconcile their doctrinal differences ?--State who probably 
introduced Christianity into Rome.—Mention the circumstances which 
made the church of Rome and its condition known to St. Paul. xii—Of 
what classes of converts did the Roman church originally consist ? xiii, 
—Who was the bearer of the Epistle, and what ecclesiastical character did 
she sustain ?—How may the Epistle be divided ?—What are the leading 
topics of the doctrinal parts?—Is there sufficient evidence to prove its 
genuineness ? xiv. xv. 


Secrion I.—Cuap. I. 1-15. 
How far does the first section extend ?—State in general its contents. 
po Lt 
What does St. Paul mean when he speaks of himself as “ separated 
to the Gospel” ? p. 19.—Does the true exposition of ver. 4 determine the 
origin of Christ’s sonship, or state its publication 2—What is the best con- 
nection of the words “ with power” ? 20.—State the leading expositions of 


238 QUESTIONS ON THE 





the phrases “ spirit of holiness—grace and Apostleship—obedience to the 
faith—for his name—called” : 20—22.—Is a “Spiritual gift” necessarily 
miraculous ?—What is the meaning of “to have fruit ?”—Why does St. 
Paul particularly specify Rome as a place where he would be willing to 
preach the Gospel ? 23. 





Section I].—Caap. I. 16-82. 


State the general subject of this section.—What reason is given for 
glorying in the Gospel ?—What does it contain ?—What is said of the 
works of creation? p. 1—How did the Heathen regard them ?—Why 
does the Apostle describe Heathen wickedness? 2. 

What is the meaning of not being “ashamed of the Gospel” ?—W hat 
reagons are given therefor ?—Explain the general meaning of the phrases 
“righteousness of God” and “from faith to faith”: 24-26.--What is meant 
by “truth” in ver. 18? and of “holding it in unrighteousness” ? 26,— 
State the meaning of ver. 20; of “when they knew” in ver. 21.—Ex- 
plain the words “they became fools.” 27, 28.—What is the “truth of 
God” equivalent to?—State the condition of the Heathen world as de- 
scribed by the Apostle—Are the charges here brought intended of every 
individual ? 28-30. 





Section II].—Cuap II. 


State the leading topic of this section—Why does the Apostle here 
censure the Jews ?—How does he represent God’s judgment ?—On what _ 
ground will the future award be made to each one ?—What is necessary 
in order to become acceptable with God ?—What is said of Heathen who 
endeavour to live agreeably to the divine Jaw ?—and of Jews who disregard 
it 2—How does the author represent the respective conditions of Jews and 
Gentiles ?— What description does he give of a true Jew? 2, 3.—What are 
the meaning and connection of “ therefore” in ver. 1? 30, 31— Wherein 
lies the Apostle’s antithesis ?—State and illustrate the meaning of “ judge 
—according to truth—riches of goodness—not knowing,” in ys. 1, 3, 4: 
31, 32.—What is the logical connection of “ for” in ver. 12? 32.—How 
are the words “sinned” and “ without law” used ?—In the 12th and follow- 
ing verses is the Apostle speaking of the scriptural ground of justification ? 
or does he meet any errour of the Jews? What is it that he here asserts ? 
Does he introduce a supposed case ?—Show from the context that he does 
not: 33, 84.—What is the meaning here of the word translated, “shall - 
be justified” ? 34, 35.—What does the phrase “by nature” in ver. 14 ex- 
press ?—What does St. Paul mean when he speaks of Gentiles doing the 
things of the law? 34.—Show that his representation is consistent with 
that made of the Heathen in the first chapter: 35.—Can the word Gentiles 
here be understood of those who had been converted to the Gospel ?—Ex- 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 239 





plain the phrase “work of the law”: 36.—What is the meaning of the 
words rendered “the mean while—one another” ?—Show the connection of 
ver. 16: 37.—Explain the phrase “my Gospel”: 38.—State the two read- 
ings of the first part of ver. 17, and the general thought that follows : 38, 
39.—Does the Greek which is rendered “approvest the things that are 
more excellent,” admit of another translation ? 39.— What does “ commit- 
ting sacrilege” here mean ?—Is any particular text of the Old Testament 
referred to in ver, 24 ?—What general thought is contained in vs, 25-29? 
—What does circumcision here mean ?—Does the Apostle speak of a hy- 
pothetical or sincere though imperfect obedience? 40, 41.—Explain the 
phrase “ by the letter and circumcision”: 41.—Give the meaning of vs. 
25-27.—W hat is meant by “spirit and letter” 2—State the leading thought 
in the two last verses: 42. . 





Section [V.—Cuap. III. 


What does the Apostle do in this section ?—What does he state to be 
the chief advantage of the Jew ?—How does he show that the faithlessness 
of a part of the nation cannot affect God’s fidelity ?—In reverting to the 
subject of justification, what is the bearing of his question, and how does 
he reply ? 3.—How does he prove the Jews to be grievous sinners ?— 
From what he has just said and what he had before shown, what is proved 
of all mankind 2—W hat follows ?—How is justification now made known 2 
—What is declared and secured by Christ’s sacrifice ?—What general con- 
clusion is then drawn ?—And how is God made to appear ? 4, 

Show the connection between this and the preceding chapter.—Is the 
language in ver. 1 that of an objector ?—Which translation accords best 
with New Testament usage, “ unto them were committed,” or, ‘they were 
entrusted with’ ?—What is the meaning of “ the oracles of God” ? 43.—In 
what sense is the word “faith” used in ver, 3 ?—State the two meanings of 
the word translated “art judged,” and its meaning here : 44,—What is the 
meaning of Jewish “unrighteousness commending the righteousness of 
God” ?—Explain the phrases “taketh vengeance—speak as a man.”— 
Where and how does the Apostle fully meet the Jewish objection ? 45, 46. 
—What is the simplest mode of analysing the Greek text ?—Is the verb in 
ver. 9 best explained in a passive or middle or active sense 2—What sort 
of advantage is it that the Apostle here denies ? 47._Is “ proved” the best 
translation of the Greek verb in ver. 9 ?—What is the meaning of being 
“under sin” ?—Are the texts that follow all quoted from one portion of 
the Old Testament or several ?—For what purpose are they quoted ?—Are 
the specific charges here made applicable to every Jew?—If not, how are 
the quotations relevant to the intended purpose ?—Explain the figure “ open 
sepulchre”: 48, 49.--What is the meaning of “law” in ver. 19 2—Is the 


240 QUESTIONS ON THE 





conclusion which is drawn in the latter half of this verse confined to the 
Jews or is it general ?—How is the term “ law” employed in vs, 20, 21? 
in the sense of moral or ceremonial ?—How is the knowledge of sin by 
law ?—What is the bearing of “now” in ver, 21?—Explain the phrases 
“ righteousness of God—the law and the prophets—witnessed” : 50, 51.— 
How is God’s method of justification more particularly stated in ver. 22? 
What does “faith” here mean ?— What difference is there between “ unto” 
and “ upon” ? 52.—What is meant by “the glory of God—redemption— 
freely” ? 53, 54.—‘“ Set forth” : show why this translation is preferable to 
‘ ordained.’—* Propitiation”: Does this allude to the idea of “merey 
seat,” or “sacrifice” ?—What is meant by “ faith in Christ’s blood” ?—State 
the various forms in which the object of faith is expressed in the New 
Testament: 54, 55,—What is the most probable meaning of “righteousness” 
in ver. 26? 56.—How is the believer expressed in the Greek ? Give one 
or two similar expressions.— W hat is the force of the words “ at this time” ? 
—In ver, 27, what is “law” equivalent to? 57.—What are “ circumcision 
and uncircumcision” put for in ver. 30 ?—How does the New Testament 
doctrine of justification sustain moral law ? 58. 


Section V.—Cuap. IV. 


How is justification by faith here proved and applied ?—What law 
has the Apostle’s preceding course of argument in view? Does he con- 
tinue to limit the discussion to moral law? 4.—What confidence gives 
occasion to his remarks ?—On what ground does the Scripture put the 
justification of Abraham ?—How does David describe the condition of the 
justified man ?%—Does this condition belong exclusively to Jews ?—Was 
Abraham justified before or after his cireumcision ?—Of what then was it 
an attestation ?—Of whom did he therefore become the spiritual parent ?— 
In consequence of what was the great promise given to him ?—To whom 
is this promise secured? 5.—How does the Apostle describe Abraham’s 
faith 9—Why was this recorded in the Old Testament? 6. 

Mention the different meanings which the first verse will bear accord- 
ing as it is variously pointed. State the connection and meaning of “as 
pertaining to the flesh :” 59, 60.—What reply is given to the question in 
this verse? 60.—In the phrase, “counted unto him for righteousness,” 
what is the meaning of “for? righteousness? counted unto?” What 
other equivalent terms to the last'are employed in our translation and in 
theological discussion? What is said to be thus counted or reckoned or 
imputed to?—What language does the Apostle here use in speaking of 
justification ?—Give the sense of the various expressions.—Is there any 
difference in the general idea conveyed by each? Is the term righteous- 
ness or justification best adapted to express the Apostle’s meaning? 61, 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 241 


62.—What general principle is laid down in verse 4%—Explain the 
- phrase “worketh not.”—Does the language of the Itomily on Salvation 
agree with this?—What is the full signification of “him that justifieth the 
ungodly” ?~-What state of blessedness does the quotation from the Psalm 
denote? What are the necessary conclusions deducible from the passage 
as here applied ?—Illustrate the second by other language of St. Paul, 
—State his idea of justification——Prove that the Homily contains the 
same view: 62-64.—“‘ What does the author show in vs. 9-12 ?—Has 
the phrase, “for we say,” a logical connection with anything previous ?— 
Was Abraham’s faith available to his justification before his circumcision 
or after 2—If before, in what light is his circumcision to be regarded ? 64. 
—Explain the terms “ sign and seal—sign of circumcision.” What is the 
antecedent of “ which” in ver, 11 ?—Which is the more probable transla- 
tion, “ that” or so that “he might be”? Of whom was Abraham to be- 
come the spiritual parent? What is the force here of the Greek prepo- 
sition expressed by the English word “ though”? After the words “ father 
of circumcision” in ver. 12, what is the meaning of the remainder of the 
verse, and whom does it describe? 65.—Show the logical connection of 
“ for” in ver. 13.—What is the meaning of the word “ seed” ?—Explain 
the parallel place in Gal. iii, 16—In harmony with this explanation de- 
velop the full signification of the phrase “heir of the world.”—Is the last 
clause of the verse’ applicable to Christ ? 66, 67—Who are meant by 
** they of the law” in ver. 14 ?— What general principle is now laid down? 
In what other parts of this Epistle is it again stated? Explain “all” or 
the whole “seed” in ver. 16: 68.—How and why do the words “ of the 
law” in ver. 16 differ from the same words in ver. 142—Where is the 
quotation in ver. 17 taken from ?—Show its relevancy to the Apostle’s 
purpose.— What is the connection of “before him” ?—Illustrate the de- 
scription now given of God: 69.—What sort of a quotation is that at the 
end of ver. 18 ?—Explain the 19th verse both with and without the nega- 
tive reading— Why is the efficacy of Abraham’s faith recorded in Serip- 
ture ?—What is implied in the belief which is spoken of in ver, 242 
70, 71. 





Section VI.—Cuapr. V. 1-11. 


What consequences are traced in this section ?—What is justification 
followed by ?—State the condition of the justified man.—How is the love 
of God set in contrast with human affection 2—W hat follows from the fact 
that God gave his son to die for sinners? 6, 7. 

What is the most accurate translation of the first Greek word? 71. 
—‘ Rejoice :” does the original term occur elsewhere in this connection 
differently translated ?—In what does the Apostle represent the Christian 


242 QUESTIONS ON THE 





as rejoicing ?—-What is probably the true meaning here of the word ren- 
dered “ experience.” —Explain the phrases “ hope maketh not ashamed,” and 
“the love of God.”—Does the effusion of the Spirit here spoken of refer 
to his ordinary or extraordinary influences ? 72.—Illustrate the phrase “in 
due time” by a parallel one in Galatians—What do verses 7 and 8 ex- 
press?—State the meaning of the words “righteous” and “good,” and 
show the connection of the two clauses in ver. 7: 73, 74.—What is the 
meaning of “ justified by his blood,” in ver. 9, and what doctrines are therein 
implied ?—W hat Jife of Christ is referred to in ver. 10 ?—Quote one or two 
parallel texts.—Explain the words, “received the atonement”: 74, 75. 





Section VII.—Cuapr. V. 12-21. 


What is the general train of thought in this section ?—What does the 
Apostle now proceed to show ?—How was sin introduced into the world? 
—What followed 2—How extensive were the results ?—How does it appear 
that death was the consequence of Adam’s transgression ?—State the 
Apostle’s representation of the correspondence between Adam and Christ, 
and the points of dissimilarity: 7.—For what purpose was moral law in- 
troduced? 8. 

State the design of St. Paul as in harmony with the scope of the Epis- 
tle: 75, 76. What is the connection and meaning of “ therefore ?”— Who 
is meant by the “ one man,” and why is he specified ? 76.—What does the 
word sin generally express ?—What else does it here denote ?—State the 
meaning of the Apostle’s first proposition.—In what sense does he here em- 
ploy the word “ death” ?—State the meaning of the second proposition.— 
What repetition is contained in the latter half of the verse ?—State and defend 
the true meaning of the words “for that”: 77-79.—Mention the three 
leading expositions of the phrase “have sinned”: 79-81.—What objec- 
tions may be urged against the first ?—Can it be allowed that the author 
makes his statement without regard to infants and idiots? 79, 80.— 
According to the second exposition what will the statement be ?—Does 
this sense correspond with that of any other in this context ?—ls it 
sanctioned by similar scriptural language? 80, 81.—According to the 
third leading exposition what does the statement comprehend ?—May 
then the degree and extent of the death alluded to vary ?—Has this Jast 
view been objected to ?—How does the context bear on this sense? 81. 
—How does scriptural analogy ?—Does this view militate against the 
comparison drawn by the Apostle between Christ and Adam ?—In what 
does this comparison consist ? 82,—What is the Apostle’s general state- 
ment? 83.—Is the construction of the verse clear ?—Give the views on 
this point of some of the most distinguished commentators :—Is 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 243 


“during” or ‘until’ the better translation ?—Are the Apostle’s declara- 
tions in vs. 18, 14, merely independent propositions ? 84.—If not, how are 
they logically connected, and how stands the argument? 85.—Can a 
sufficient reason be given for the limitation of the period “ to Moses”? 86. 
Is the application of the words, “even over them that had not sinned after 
the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” necessarily confined to infants and 
idiots?—Who is meant by “him that is to come”? Is the Greek term 
the one commonly used for the Messiah? 87.—Explain the meaning of 
“figure” or ‘type’: 87, 88.—What points of dissimilarity does the author 
now proceed to note ?—What is the proper meaning of “the many” ? 88, 
—In the first clause of ver. 16, is the true Greek reading a participle or a 
noun ?—How did the latter reading probably arise? — How may the 
ellipsis in the first clause of this verse be supplied ?—State the difference 
in meaning between the Greek phrases rendered “by one” in our transla- 
tion ;—the bearing of the word “ receive” in ver. 17: 89;—the idea con- 
veyed by “ abundance of grace.”—Does the Apostle teach that the benefit 
derived through Christ exceeds the evil entailed through Adam ? 90, 91. 
—TIn ver. 18, which is the better translation, “the offence of one—the 
righteousness of one,” or ‘one offence—one righteousness’ ? 91.— What is 
to be supplied in the two clauses of this verse ?—State the meaning of 
“were made” in ver. 19: 92.—Is the promise in the latter clause abso- 
lute, or does it imply some condition 2—In ver. 20, is “the law” limited 
to the Mosaic ?—What is the full force of the word translated “ entered” ? 
93.—Where and how does the author explain more fully the meaning of, 
“that the offence might abound” ?—What are the contrasted expressions 
in ver. 21? 94. 


Section VIII.—Cuap. VI. 


What is the practical tendency of the doctrines before explained 2— 
What is the baptized Christian’s condition, and what connection has it with 
a life of holiness ?—How is our future glorious resurrection a result of 
our present moral one ?—What influence should Christ’s death and life 
in heayen have on us?+—Why are we enabled to live a holy life?—How 
is the Christian’s condition contrasted with his former natural one 2— 
State the two leading thoughts in the chapter: 8. 

What practical errour does the Apostle now guard against ?—State his 
two important considerations :—What sort of language is “dead to sin” ? 
95.—In explaining figurative language what caution is necessary?  Illus- 
trate the figure here employed.—State the difference between John’s bap- 
tism and Christ’s: 96.—What is real Christian baptism ?—Recite St. 
Peter’s definition of baptism.—How is the figure of clothing used in the 
Bible ?—What is meant by putting on the Lord Jesus 2—Give some illus- 


244 QUESTIONS ON THE 





trations of the phrase-—How does this view accord with that in our cate 
chism ? 97.—How does the Apostle speak of baptism and of the baptized ?— 
Does he carry out the figure with which he begins ?—In ver, 4 does he 
allude to the mode of baptizing by immersion ? 98,.—What does ‘ planted 
or grown together’ imply ?—Has the author a twofold resurrection in 
view ?—Explain the phrases “old man—new man—body of sin—freed 
from sin.” 99,—Can the living with Christ which is spoken of in ver. 8 be 
limited to the present state ?—Explain what is meant by Christ’s having 
“died unto sin,” and “living unto God ;” also, “ once”; 100.—On what 
is the exhortation begun in ver. 11 founded ?—Why is the Christian’s being 
under grace and not law a reason for sin’s not ruling him? 101.—Can you 
assign any reason why some transcribers haye rejected the words “ unto 
death” in ver. 16 2—What is the meaning of “ righteousness” ? 102,—Ex- 
plain the last phrase of ver. 17: 103.—In ver. 18 et seq., how are sin and 
righteousness represented ?—What idea is conveyed by the phrase “ in- 
iquity unto iniquity” 2—What verbal antithesis is stated in vs, 21, 224% 
104 ;—And contrast in ver, 23? 105. 





Section [X.—Cuap. VII—VIIL 17. 


What does St. Paul intend to show in this section ?—What use does 
he make of the analogy drawn from the marriage relation ?—Is it the Jews 
or the law that he represents as dead?—How is the influence of law on 
sinfal nature depicted ?—What two conditions are described by the words 
“IT was alive once without the law,” and “ when the commandment came 
I died ” ?—What character does the Apostle proceed to personate ?—How 
does he describe its perceptions and feelings ?—How does he represent 
man’s reason and conscience in opposition to his sinful nature ?—What is 
the natural result of the struggle ?—How is deliverance to be obtained? 
—In his Christian condition, can the man obey God’s law?—Is he as be- 
fore, in a state of condemnation ?—What does the Gospel effect which the 
law could not do ?—What are the respective results of submission to tho 
carnal and the spiritual principle ?—What is said to be the ultimate blessed 
effect of the indwelling of the Spirit ?—What is the test of true filiation ? 
9, 10. 

The connection of what two doctrines is here implied 2—What is the 
meaning of “ know the law”? 105; and to whom does the Apostle ad- 
dress himself ?—Does the word “liveth” relate to the man or the law ?— 
Explain the phrase “law of her husband.’—For what purpose is the 
thought in vs. 2, 3, introduced ?—What is the general idea of the illustra- 
tion? 106.—How does the Apostle apply his comparison ?—What is 
meant by “the body of Christ” ?—Apart from the figure what is the 
thought ?—What two contrary states are expressed in vs. 5, 6 ?—Explain 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 245 


the phrases “in the flesh, 107,—passions of sins—by the law—members.” 
—What is the phrase “ to bring forth fruit unto death” contrasted with? 
108.—What is the,true reading of the Greek which is translated “that 
being dead” ?—Explain and defend the meaning of that reading. —What 
do the phrases “newness of spirit and oldness of letter” denote ?—Why 
does the Apostle put the question, “is the law sin”? 108, 109.—In what 
follows does St. Paul speak of himself’—Does he intend to represent a 
regenerate or ante-regenerate condition ?—Can this point be determined 
by the sense which some phrases will bear ?—What is the best clew to 
his meaning ?—What state of mind does he describe ? 109, 110.—In the 
whole representation extending into the next chapter, what stages of de- 
velopment are distinguishable ?—In ver. 8 what is the meaning of “sin” ? 
What is the best connection of the phrase “by the commandment” ?— 
What is the meaning of the words “I was alive”? 111, 112.—In what 
sense is the word “commandment” employed 2—How is it here said to 
come ?—What is meant by “I died”? 112, 113.—To what does the 
word “ deceived” appear to allude ?—What is here said to slay ?—Is the 
same elsewhere asserted of the law ?—Explain the meaning in each case : 
113.—State the different modifications of meaning, and that which is the 
most probable, of the 13th verse after “God forbid.”—What does the 
particle “for” in the beginning of verse 14 imply? 114.—What does 
the word “spiritual” denote ?—Explain “carnal, sold under sin.”— 
What is described in vs. 15-20? 115.—Explain the phrases, “I allow 
not—consent unto—now—no more—I—my flesh :” 116—What is here 
the meaning of “to will” 2—Give the general sense of these verses.— 
What is “ the law” spoken of in verse 21 ?—What is it elsewhere called ? 
117.—With what is it contrasted 2—‘Show the scriptural meaning of the 
phrase “inward (or inner) man”: 118.—State and refute certain objections 
which have been urged against this meaning: 119.-—What is the force of 
the word rendered, “I delight in” ? and what idea does it express ? 119, 120. 
—What result is denoted by the phrase, “ bringing me into captivity” ?— 
Explain what is meant by “ the body of this death” : 120.—What does the 
first clause of ver. 25 express ?—What reading of the Greek is the best ? 
Recapitulate certain particulars contained in this chapter, either by 
direct expression or necessary implication: 121-123.—Who is intended 
by the words “I myself” ?—-Explain the terms “ mind—flesh—serve.”— 
State the more prominent expositions of the last sentence: 124, 125;— 
the force of the particle “now” in viii. 1 ;—the meaning of “in Christ 
Jesus,”—Is the remainder of the verse genuine ?—Explain the phrases 
“the law of the spirit of life—the law of sin and death.” -—With what 
does the latter stand in contradistinction ?—Illustrate the Greek which is 
translated, “ what the law could not do” : 125, 126.— What does “the flesh” 
here mean ?—How does the phrase “ sending his own son” bear upon the 


246 ' QUESTIONS ON THE 


doctrine of the sonship of Christ ?—Explain “likeness of sinful flesh” ;— 
the Greek rendered “ for sin ;—condemned ;—in the flesh.”—What other 
thing does the author now point out which Christ did? 127.—What sort 
of fulfilment of righteousness is intended ?—Confirm the true meaning by 
some other phrases.—State the force of “in.”—-What character does the 
latter part of the text describe ?—State and illustrate the meaning of 
“mind.”—What is the meaning of the noun translated “to be minded” 
and “ the mind,” taken actively and passively ? 128.—Which is to be pre- 
ferred 2—How is the same word employed in our 19th article ?—What 
are the respective results of the influence of the two principles ?—How is 
the enmity of the carnal mind to God shown 2—What is the meaning of “in 
the Spirit”? His indwelling ?—* Christ in you”? 129.—Is there any dif- 
ference between the meaning of Spirit in ver. 9 and in ver, 11 ?—Ex- 
plain the phrase, “the body is dead because of sin” in ver. 10;—the 
meaning of “righteousness”; 130.—In verse 11, what is the true reading 
and translation of the Greek rendered “by his Spirit” ?—Give the sense 
of the whole verse; 130, 131.—Explain the phrase, “ deeds of the body” 
in ver. 13; 182;—also “spirit of bondage—Spirit of adoption” in ver. 
15: 182.—What is the thought in the latter part of this verse ?—Explain 
the difference between the form of expression here and in Gal. iv. 6.— 
What is the scriptural test of filiation?—What is the proper force of the 
Greek preposition here employed? 133, 134. 





Section X.—Cuap. VIII. 18-39. 


In this section what are compared?—Are mankind in general repre- 
sented as waiting for a happier condition ?—Is this true also of Christians ? 
—What are the trials of life intended to promote ?~How is the opera- 
tion of God’s eternal affection towards the subjects of it represented 2— 
What appeals does the Apostle now make ?—What persuasion does he 
avow ? 1], 12. 

Show the connection of this portion with what immediately precedes: 
134,—Give the correct translation of the word rendered “ manifestation” 
in ver. 2.—Explain the sense of “glory.” — What is the meaning of 
“the revelation of the sons of God”? 135, 136.—State the three lead- 
ing expositions of the word here rendered “ creature” and in verse 22 
“creation”: 136-138.—Defend the last of these expositions: 138-140. 
—Explain what is meant by “ vanity—bondage of corruption”: 140, 142. 
—Show the meaning of and contrast between “not willingly” and “ by 
reason of him who hath subjected”: 140, 141.—TIllustrate the best mean- 
ing and connection of the first word in ver. 21.—Give the thought in 
ver. 22: 142.—What is meant by “ first fruits of the Spirit ?—adoption 
and redemption” ? 143.—Which is the better translation, by or in hope ?—~ 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 247 





What is meant by “saved” ?— What is the force of “ likewise” ?—the full 
sense of the word rendered “helpeth”?—What is meant by the Spirit’s 
interceding ? 144.—“unutterable groanings”” ?—Explain the language of 
ver. 27. 

State the propositions contained in verse 28 et seq. 145.—How often 
does the noun and verb “ purpose” occur in the New Testament, as bearing 
on the subject here brought into consideration ?—Give the places.—W hat is 
its meaning in ix. 11 ?—What does it comprehend in Eph. i. 11 ?—Explain 
the words “things in heaven and on earth”; 146.—What is said to be in 
accordance with the purposes of God ?—When is this predestination and 
choice represented as being made ?—Are they limited to outward and 
temporary blessings ?—Does God’s purpose mentioned in Eph, iii. 11, relate 
to the union of Jews and Gentiles:in the church of Christ? 147.—Is this 
union all that it had in view ?—Has it not a bearing on angelic beings 2— 
Explain the meaning and bearing of 2 Tim. i. 9. 148.—State now what 
God’s purpose embraces :—Is it a necessary consequence that the intended 
result shall take place ?—-May God’s will as represented in Scripture fail 
of accomplishment ?—Does the Apostle speak of God’s will in close con- 
nection with his purpose ?—Does this connection illustrate the nature of 
each? 149.—Who then are the “called according to his purpose ” ?— 
“ Foreknow” : can the meaning be limited to a simple previous knowledge ? 
—Does it mean a foreknowledge of a disposition to embrace the gospel ? 
Does it express the same idea as “ predestinate” ? 149, 150.—State and 
defend another more probable meaning of the word :—What is the na- 
ture of that conformity to Christ’s image which predestination has in view ? 
—To what is the expression “ first born” equivalent ?—What is expressed 
by the terms “ called? 151, justified? glorified” ?—Explain and illustrate 
the last.—In all this portion of whom is the Apostle speaking? 152,— 
Can the calling &c. here spoken of be limited to the enjoyment of the 
present blessings of the Gospel ?—What is St. Peter’s language on this 
point?—Is any difficulty removed by supposing St. Paul to be speaking 
of communities ?—Does the Apostle here teach any thing of those who 
are not Christians? 153, 154.—What does the word “all” in verse 32 
recognise ?—W hat is the best punctuation of the following verses? 154.— 
What does the word “ elect” express ?—Illustrate its meaning from the Old 
Testament and the Apostolic fathers: 155.—Does the phrase “love of 
Christ” mean ‘our love to him’ or “ his to us” ?—Do the following verses 
sustain the doctrine of final perseverance 2—How does the language in 
Phil. i. 6, illustrate their meaning ?—How are the expressions that follow 
to be understood? 157, 


248 _ QUESTIONS ON THE 





Section XI.—Cwnar. IX. X. XL. 


Mention the general topics of this section.—Why does the Apostle ex- 
press his grief so deeply ?—What privileges of his nation does he display ? 
—What constitutes the true spiritual Israelite ?—How is the author’s senti- 
ment illustrated in the patriarchal history ? 12, 138.—How does God act in 
favouring and punishing ?—What cases are mentioned in illustration ?— 
What Jewish objection is stated ?—Give the Apostle’s reply, both gener- 
ally and particularly : 13, 14.—What application does he make of certain 
passages from the prophets?—What general conclusion does he then 
sum up ?—To what is the failure of Israel owing ?—Wherein was their 
zeal for the law shown to be erroneous?—How is Christ the end or ob- 
ject of the law 2—How may legal justification be expressed ?—What does 
God’s justification offer?—Is this offer general?—What must be done in 
order to enjoy its blessings ? 14,—Was it to be expected that some would 
reject the Gospel ?—Could the Israelites know that it was the divine purpose 
to extend it to the Gentiles ?—Does the rejection of unbelieving Jews im- 
ply the final rejection of the nation ?—How does the case of Israel in the 
time of Elijah coincide with their condition as stated by the Apostle ?—To 
whom are the seven thousand analogous ?—What is the condition of the 
remainder ?—What has been the result of the rejection of the Gospel by 
the Jews as regards the Gentiles? 15.—And what might be expected from 
their conversion ?—From the character and condition of the patriarchs and 
early converts, how does the Apostle represent the whole body ?—How 
does he warn the Gentile?—Does he seem to expect a future conversion 
of the Jews as a nation?—How do God’s plans evince his intention of 
showing mercy to all? 16. 

Are these chapters without connection with the preceding ones ?—Why 
does the Apostle introduce them with such strong expressions of attach- 
ment to his nation? 158, 159.—Explain the phrases “ in Christ,—I could 
wish,—accursed” :—W hat is meant by becoming anathema from Christ ?— 
State the Apostle’s general meaning.—Why is the word “Israelite” here 
selected ? 159, 160.—Explain the terms here used to express Jewish pri- 
vileges.—Is the received reading of the last phrase in ver. 5 correct? 161. 
—Can the punctuation be altered, and the words be regarded as an ascrip- 
tion of praise to God 2—What is the invariable scriptural construction in 
such ascriptions ? 162, 163.—What is meant by “the word of God” in 
ver. 62?—State the different significations of the word “Israel” in the 
same verse: 163.—What is the idea which the Apostle expresses ?—Ex- 
plain the phrase “children of the flesh—of the Spirit—according to the 
time of life.’—Does the 8th verse contain a merely accommodated sense, 
or does it convey the true meaning of the phrases? 164.—Why does the 
Apostle introduce the case of Rebecca after that of Sarah ?—What is 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 249 





nere meant by “God’s purpose according to election” ?—J]rom what did 
this purpose result? 165.—Are the individuals Jacob and Esau here in- 
tended, or their descendants ?—Explain the antithetic expressions “love” 
and “hate”: 166, 167.—What would the Apostle’s Jewish readers infer 
from what he had said ?—Explain the origin and meaning of the word 
Moses: 167, 168—What is the thought of which the particle “for” 
in ver. 15 is illative?—In what connection does the quotation from 
Exodus occur ?—Explain the terms “ willeth” and “runneth.”—What does 
the case of Pharaoh stand in contradistinction to? 168.—What principle 
do both illustrate ?—Translate the Hebrew and Septuagint words for that 
here used by the Apostle.—State the principal translations which have 
been given to his expression.—Why does he substitute the first person for 
the second as employed in the Septuagint ? 169, 170.—Illustrate the mean- 
ing from the connection in which the quotation stands in Exodus.—Ex- 
plain the phrase “ he hardeneth”: 170, 171.—On what is the objection in 
the 19th verse founded?’—Give in detail the Apostle’s general an- 
swer: 171.—What is his direct answer to the Jew ?—“ Power over the 
clay”: Illustrate the Greek phrase.—In ver. 22, is there a suppression of 
the sense, or an ellipsis 7—Explain “ vessels of wrath—of mercy” : 172.— 
State the difference between the expressions “ fitted for” and “ which he 
had afore prepared unto.”—Mention the probable connection and bearing 
of the words, “that he might make known”: 173, 174.—“ Afore pre- 
pared”: Illustrate and defend this meaning of the Greek word: 175, 176. 
—Give the leading train of thought from ver. 14: 176, 177.—Who are 
meant “by the vessels of mercy” as here stated by the Apostle ?—Of 
whom is Hosea speaking in the passage here quoted ? 177.—What is the 
meaning of “in the place” ?—How is the quotation applied 2—Explain the 
full sense of the remnant being saved: 178.—How is the quotation from 
Isa. i. 9 to be explained? 179.—In ver. 28, what is the best translation of 
the word rendered “ work” ?—Explain the whole verse connected with it. 
—What does Isaiah express by it? 180, 181—How does St. Paul apply 
it _—Which is the best construction, that which regards vs. 30, 31, as the 
question, and what immediately follows “ wherefore” as the answer; or 
the usual one, which limits the question to the first clause? 181.—What 
bearing have these verses on the interpretation of the preceding part of 
the chapter ?—What is meant by the Gentiles not following after justifi 
cation ?—Explain the words “law of righteousness” or justification —Ex 
plain the particle rendered “ as it were”: 182, 183.—Where is the quota 
tion in ver, 33 taken from ?—State its general meaning: 183.—Explain 
the phrases “ stumbling-stone and rock of offence”; also the difference 
between the translation “ shall not be ashamed” here given, and “shall not 
make haste” in the Old Testament. 

How may we account for the introduction of “Israel” in x, 12 184,— 


250 QUESTIONS ON THE 





“Bear record”: State the different meanings of the word, and that here 
required,— Explain and illustrate the phrase “zeal of God.”—What is the 
illative force of “ for” in ver, 4?—What is meant by Christ’s being “ the 
end of the law for justification” ? 185, 186.—In ver. 5 does St. Paul im- 
ply that justification can be of law? or that Moses meant to describe it ? 
186.—How are the quotations here made intended to be applied —Ex- 
plain the sense of “ that is” in vs. 6,7: also of “going up to heaven, down 
to the abyss, and over the sea,” 187 ;—and other similar phraseology.— 
What is the thought which St. Paul expresses ?—Explain the phrases “ in 
thy mouth and in thy heart”; also, “ the word of faith”: 188.—What is 
meant by “Jew and Greek”?—What does the word “rich” imply ?— 
What is “ call upon” equivalent to ?—Who is the object of prayer here in- 
tended?—Explain the meaning and connection of the quotation from Joel: 
189.—W hat is implied in being “sent” to preach the Gospel? 190, 191.— 
Are the quotations in vs. 15, 16, accommodated ?—How is that in ver. 18 
applied ?——Explain the difference between the word “sound” here used 
and “line” in the Psalm: 191.—State the course of remark from ver, 13: 
—What is the purport of the question, “did not Israel know” ?—How do 
the quotations afford the affirmative answer 2—What is meant by exciting 
the Israelites to jealousy by no people? 192, 193. 

What does the Apostle proceed to do in the 11th chapter? 193.—Is the 
phrase “his people” to be limited to those Israelites who had embraced the 
Gospel, or does it comprehend the nation as a body ? 194.—Why does St. 
Paul speak here so particularly of himself? 194, 195.—W hat bearing on his 
representation has the case of Elijah here stated ?—Sustain the view given 
by subsequent verses : 195.—How does the conclusion arrived at harmonize 
with some prophecies, and with the preservation of the Jews as a people ?— 
Explain the obsolete word “wot.”—Is “of” or “in Elias” the more literal 
version ? 196, 197.—Is Baal feminine or masculine ?—W hat does the lan- 
guage, a “ remnant according to the election of grace,” mean ? and to what 
does it refer ? 197.—W hat sentiment is expressed in ver. 6 ?—How does the 
statement here made differ from that in ix. 31 and x. 3?—Explain the 
word “election” as here used.—What is the general meaning of vs. 9, 10 ? 
—For what purpose are the texts here quoted ?—Show the connection of 
the clause “unto this day”: 198, 199.—Explain the phrase “spirit of 
slumber.”—Give the general meaning of vs. 11, 12. 199.—Explain the 
words “stumbling, falling”; also, the phrases “provoke to jealousy, 
riches of the world:” 200.—Instead of “diminishing,” what is the mar- 
ginal reading ?—What is the meaning of the Greek word? 200, 201.— 
What is denoted by “fulness” ?—Explain the words, “I magnify mine 
office,” in harmony with the context.—What is the force of the expression, 
“my flesh”? 201, 202.—What is meant by “life from the dead” ?—To 
what does the language in the first clause of ver. 16 allude ?—Does the 


PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 951 


term “first fruits” refer to the patriarchs or early converts ?—What are 
meant by “the root and branches” ? 202, 203.—In ver. 17 who are intended 
in the words “among and with them” ?—Explain the illustration from in- 
serting grafts of a wild olive into a good one: 204—What word would 
most naturally supply the ellipsis in ver, 21 ?—How is the divine readiness 
to receive repentant Jews expressed in ver. 242 205.—What is the 
general meaning of the word “ mystery” in the New Testament ?— With 
what is “in part” best connected ?—What does the clause “ until the ful- 
ness of the Gentiles be come in” express?——What is meant by “all 
Israel” ? 205, 206.—What is to be said respecting the quotations in vs. 
26, 272 207, 208.—State the meaning of vs. 28, 29, as given on p. 195.— 
To what does ver. 30 refer ?—What is the best punctuation of ver. 31, and 
the meaning of its latter half? 209.—What is meant by “concluded in 
unbelief” 2—Recite a similar passage in Galatians —How is God said to 
do this ? 209, 210.—State the meaning of ver. 33 in the English transla- 
tion, and also in that which substitutes and for both.—Give the sentiment 
in vs. 34, 35; also the idea in ver. 36: 211. 





Section XII.—Cuars. XII-XYVI, 


How may this part of the Epistle be characterized in contradistinction 
to the former ?—What does St. Paul urge upon his readers in the 12th 
chapter ?—What in the 15th, and what motive does he employ ?—State the 
general contents of the 14th.—How does he there present the example of 
Christ 2—What does he say of himself?—What does the last chapter 
chiefly contain? 17, 

Give the sense of “ prove” in xii, 2? 212.—What is the general signi- 
fication of prophet and prophecy in the Bible? 213.—Explain the phrase 
“analogy of faith”: 213, 214.—What is meant by “providing things 
honest” ? 215.—Explain “ give place unto” : 215, 216.—State the promi- 
nent idea in vs. 20, 21 : 216.—What sort of authority is intended in xiii. 
1 et seq. ? 217.—Explain the motive to the practice of Christian virtues 
which is employed in ver. 11: 219, 220.—What idea is expressed by the 
words “ put on” ?—How is the quotation from Isaiah applied in xiy. 11, 
12% 222.—What is the sense of “destroy” in ver. 15?—What is meant 
by “ your good” ? 223.—Explain tne phrase “kingdom of God” : 223, 224. 
—What is meant by “ work of God” and “ faith” 2? 224.—Is there suffi- 
cient reason for placing here the doxology of xvi. 25-27 ?—Is the quota- 
tion in xv. 3 properly accommodated ?—To what class does it belong ? 225. 
—In vs. 8, 9, for what purpose does the Apostle represent Christ as sent : 
226.—Is the representation in ver. 16 to be understood literally or figura- 
tively ? 227.—Explain and illustrate it by other similar places: 227, 228. 
—In ver. 19, from whence is the translation “fully preached” derived ? 





. 228,—Is there reason to think that 9 Pa Paul ever acibnipiiabied his purpose of | = 


going to Spain ?—Substitute some expository phrase for “sealed to them 
4 this ‘fruit : 2” 228, 229.—Explain the figure in xvi. 4.—What is meant by 
“the church that is in their house” ?—Reconcile the statement here made 
- with 1 Cor. xvi. 15.—Explain the words “ of note among the Apostles” : 
230, 231.—How was the kiss of peace used among the early Christians ? 
r 231.—Explain and illustrate the figure in ver. 20: 282.—Vindicate the 
true meaning of the words, “ since the world began”: 283,—Explain the 

relative pronoun in the Greek of ver. 27: 284. 


THE END. 


4 
: 
: 





of Else 
a ¥ “Jieds mt é 
7” ee 
; . yt ma 
' bes " ny 
tii ‘pal? 


; ‘ie wy 
\. ah 


i Oy ad 
ce pes: 








7138. OY Jy 









wi any y ie 
rip ents 
td an Pin | mie ‘ye 


m6 
ba oA ‘9 


- 


_ 
7 


; 





LAN vin 


2 01356 


coor ray 
Me A Oetah dine 


lege oh 
re Soe 
at's 
Ly Pe 
diosestansere 


Bee nsadeenses 
af 4 ome 


PU et 


Pare 


Carrer) 
ne iat tte 
Patere al ie 


Athen 
ere eer. 
CAS eayce ates, 


Wheto tne re 
* 


tierert.s 
tte 


ve 
whew ges 4OF8 Geteta ny 
tetas oe aie 9 

ee 


Pat ober star) 
Fens 8 te 
e he 





